The woman who thinks like a cow ? – reflections on Temple Grandin
My husband and I were driving down the road when we saw two parrots by the side of the road, one alive, one dead. We were quickly struck with sadness for the living parrot obviously mourning its partner. But the next morning, the thought was still nagging me. How the hell did we KNOW the living parrot was mourning? How did we know whether this was our own fanciful, if not arrogant projection? There were a multitude of other possibilities.
The living parrot may have smelled something (the dead parrot) and gone to see what it was. The dead parrot may have become infected with maggots which the living parrot may well find akin to worms and equally edible or been considering picking off and eating mites from the dead bird. The living parrot may have been annoyed at its parent for not continuing to feed or teach it. It may have been the first time the living parrot had encountered a death of something like itself and was curious about this ‘strange sleep’. It may have considered the dead parrot absurd for choosing to sleep in such a public place, on the ground, when it had always know it was safest to sleep away up high, equipped to quickly escape. It may have been considering the dead parrots feathers for a new nest.
Anthropopathy is the projection onto non-humans the qualities we associate with humans. Religious people do it all the time, projecting human thoughts, feelings and reasoning onto ‘God’, not too differently to what we’d done with the parrot.
Temple Grandin, an engineer and expert in designing cattle chutes for the meat farming industry, who was also diagnosed on the autism spectrum, wrote a book in which she reasoned not only an array of human-like thoughts and feelings onto animals but then extrapolated that this explained or summed up the sensory responses of people with autism. In particular, she proposed that as she felt she understood animals so well that then, necessarily, animals thought like her and what she presumed ‘most autistics’ thought like. She featured on TV documentaries as ‘The Woman Who Thinks Like A Cow’. In this case she presumed that autistic people (and animals) thought in pictures whilst non-autistic people thought in words. This meant, she presumed that animals ‘thought in pictures’ like she did.
In fact, visual thinking is the predominant mode of thought in humans (unless you are blind or grow up with significant visual perceptual disorders. Around 60% of the general population think visually and only 30% think in words. Furthermore, she’d overlooked the many other less common thinking styles including one far more likely in the animal world – kinesthetic thought – essentially physical thinking relating to movement, action, the use of things and spatial orientation, predominant in around 10% of the human population and unrelated to ‘picture thinking’.
Whilst not a zoologist (the equivalent of a psychologist applied to animals) Ms Grandin’s extensive experience (for which she has a PhD) in agricultual animal handling (animal reproduction and herding captive farm stock for the purpose of human consumption) may have given her at least a captive if not unrepresentative sample to study (ie not all animals are agricultural or domestic so the ability to extrapolate from cattle or even dogs is very limited).
Any anthropologist knows, a paticipant observer has to at least put to the side their own confirmation bias about what they already believe, expect or are invested in seeing in order to be open to the vast possibilities of what might be there, far outside of one’s assumptions. What would Temple Grandin have made of the parrots, I wonder.
People on the autistic spectrum often have very rigid thinking, perhaps because of the preponderance of depression in this group, a mood disorder associated with rigid thinking. People with rigid thinking tend to think in terms of what they already believe or wish to see. Don’t most people do this to a degree? But those with schizotypal, schizoaffective or bipolar disorders, which also has some significant crossover with autistic spectrum, have been thought to have such expansive thinking that it becomes difficult for them to narrow it.
Temple Grandin is the engineer (hence the specialisation in designing cattle chutes), the scientific mind. I’m also on the autistic spectrum, diagnosed in adulthood with autism. But mine is the mind of an artist, an anthropologist, a surrealist. I struggle with conscious thought and hence have little idea what I think, perhaps a good platform from which to merely observe without seeing what’s convenient, comfortable, logical to see, to think outside of the box because I struggle to experience a box in the first place. We’re both human beings, females, both diagnosed on the autism spectrum, though otherwise with very different ‘Autism Fruit Salads‘, backgrounds, nationalities, politics, personalities, identifications, formative experiences and attachments. Taking our shared diagnosis on the spectrum as our starting point, if we had never met (we’ve met several times as colleagues), how might we each have projected our own ‘normalities’ onto each other?
As for the parrot. Humans have not one set of experiences, motivations, perceptions, feelings, thoughts and impulses. I’m going to assume the parrot had a whole range of wrestling ones, weighted differently, some of which would come forward more quickly than others, and that the parrot’s behaviour isn’t going to tell me anything profound about any one group of people but might re-confirm my belief in mystery and wonderous diversity.
Donna Williams
BA Hons, Dip Ed
author, artist, anthropologist (not on Mars)
http://www.donnawilliams.net
Parrots are great aren’t they?
Have one as part of my cursor right now.
I liked this story and tried to appreciate the parrot as parrot.
Interesting reading your thoughts about psychotic people and expansive thinking. Recently there has come some research that says that higher-level thinking is not mandatory for autistic people in the way it is for neurotypicals. So autistics can be more flexible than neurotypicals in some areas.
I like the picture too.
Hi Bronwyn,
thanks for dropping by.
With all due respect, I don’t do the word ‘neurotypical’ as non-autistic people are equally neuro-diverse and the ‘NT’ term has progressively become a supremist chant to imply people on the autistic spectrum are somehow of greater value to society (ie all geniuses). Higher level thinking is what many at the Asperger’s end of the spectrum claim to have a good deal of, so that’s an interesting research you mention and sooner or later we may need to say which ‘autistic’ people the research is refering to. Certainly, there’s heaps of non-autistic people and people on the autistic spectrum alike who don’t find higher level thinking mandatory. Strange as it sounds, I struggle to experience thought and if you asked me verbally what I thought I’d have to use matchsticks to hold my thoughts as I unravelled them and gestural signing to keep track of my words as the meaning was lost to my own meaning deaf ears. So its clearly not black and white. There’s folks who seem to rely on ‘lower level’ thinking who are suprisingly deep and those with ‘higher level’ thinking who are surprisingly shallow and other combinations. That’s why one needs to do more than theorise because life never measures up comfortable to theories.
🙂 Donna Williams *)
That’s something I tend to agree with only I think of it as everyone being different. Yes, everyone is diverse but not always neurodiverse. And it all leads to the same point anyway. If they were neurodiverse wouldn’t it spread to all other sorts of diversity too?.
You’re right about what sort of people. That’s always the first thing I want to know.
I think I can use whatever thinking I want to in a particular situation and in most cases other people are to. I find it very difficult to identify the kind of thinking going on. High-level to me is something beautiful no matter who thinks it or who it belongs to. It is like a beauty beyond thought. But in cognitive psychology, which is where I heard it first, it has a special meaning.
Yes, one doesn’t think, one has to do. Don’t think, do!
When somebody asks me what I am thinking I do more showing than telling and my tells are usually unconscious so somebody may have a general idea/feel of what I may be thinking. However if they put it into their words it might feel inaccurate or it may be just right. I don’t know.
Diabetes causes neurological differences as blood sugar fluctuates extremely. Chronic Fatigue, M.E, Fibromyalgia, same thing, neuological differences. Alcoholism, substance abuse, again, neurologically different experices to those without these ‘culture/condition’ challenges/differences. Insomniacs and those with depression usually lack serotonin, those with magical thinking, OCD and Tourette’s, usually have excess dopamine, those with anxiety disorders have issues with neurochemistry differences as do those with bipolar disorders.
Even personality traits, which can form highly unusual clusters and extremities in the one person, are largely affected by greater or lesser combinations of neurochemistry patterns, leading to some extreme eccentrics, psychopaths, artists, inventors, humanitarians and sometimes just wonderfully memorable loveable or silly people.
So there’s neurodiversity and its clearly not the sole possession of those on the autistic spectrum who now, fashionably, label themselves ‘ND’ (neurodiverse) to distinguish themselves from those they see as ‘mundane’ ‘NTs’. Sure, not all culturalists are supremists, and I’m very fine with the celebration of difference and diversity FOR ALL PEOPLE but when a clique takes that pride into the realms of arrogance and culturalists become supremists, count me out of that club.
🙂 Donna Williams
http://www.donnawilliams.net
And whilst I’m on one of my exhaustive category benders (which I feel is not due to me being autistic by the way but merely having a reasonable share of the brain chemistry and mental organisation that allows me to be obsessive, like many workaholics) lets add to the neurodiversity list those with MS, parkinson’s, muscular dystrophy, motor neurone disease, cystic fibrosis, brain tumour, dementia, Alzheimers, stroke, aquired brain injury, schizophrenia, psychoses, neuroses, psychopathy, sociopathy, aggression disorders, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, aphasia, agnosia, central auditory processing disorder, scotopic sensitivity, optic neuritis, nerve deafness, and, according to some studies, even homosexuality can SOMETIMES be traced to to neurodiversity. As we all have neurological and neurochemical differences in greater or lesser degrees we can reasonably conclude that perhaps all people are neurodiverse to some degree and I’m certainly not going to create scales to divide people into ‘who is in’ and ‘who is out’ based on some new fashion that ‘difference is interesting’ and only some of us are ‘different’. Fact is some of us have bigger amounts or combinations of what makes us ‘different’ AND MANY OTHERS WHO ARE EQUALLY ‘DIFFERENT’ HIDE THESE DIFFERENCES FROM THOSE AROUND THEM LEADING TO A MYTH, AN ILLUSION, THAT NEURODIVERSITY BELONGS ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN’T OR DON’T BOTHER HIDING THE OUTWARD SIGNS OF IT.
Thank you.
It’s amazing to know how many people are neurodiverse.
It’s very freeing too.
My son loves categories too. He’s verbal now and was able to answer the question recently (after much therapy): What is the weather outside? by saying, Cloudy. He didn’t stop there, however. He kept going, and said: Rainy, Windy, Sunny, Snowy. Maybe series would be a better description of what he is doing there than categories.
Your son is very good at sequencing!
I so am not, and I have to admire that.
He would love Melbourne – four seasons in one day!
Bronwyn, I’m great at categories and horendous at sequencing. Being able to reel off a series of all items in a single collection has nothing to do with sequencing… parsnip, potato, beetroot, turnip…. no sequencing at all. Jumble them in any order and they’re still a category.
Your mention of Dr. Grandin…….made me think………..
it might be in the nature of some auties to think what they think is right……….rigid thinking. Also, since you and she are very different……….scientist and artist………even non-autie scientists and artists think very differently and therefore would interpret the same reading or speech or writing differently. so in my humble opinion, which may or may not be worth beans to many people, you are BOTH right………..EACH IS RIGHT FOR HERSELF. I read the wrongplanet online interview from the link from another of your articles…..and it was just very scientific…..what she does for her work. She is rigidly into science because it does not require frequent and in depth expression of emotion..
I’ll end before going blah blah blah……….
AI
I COMPLETELY agree.
In practice, with the 600 people on the spectrum I worked with as a consultant over 8 years, I found many who fitted the visual-thinking technical minded side and equally others who fitted the kinesthetic, sensory-oriented artistic side. I met some who were also exceptional musical or mathematical thinkers who relied on this as their primary way of expressing themselves and connecting to the world and who were unable to make good use of auditory or visual processing. I also, to my surprise, met those who relied almost solely on good auditory processing!
Hence whilst my reality and Temple’s are both represented out there in the autistic population there are certainly learning styles and personality orientations which are completely different again. But I do think the visual scientist and he kinesthetic artist do represent two major archetypes and I do find that those without good visual processing, without intact visual or auditory thinking and oriented towards the sensory are almost always underestimated in their ability when sat next to those who are visual and technical as its often the second one that’s more quickly considered ‘intelligent’ when both in fact have different types of intelligence.
Hence why its important that not only I represent the validity of Temple’s archetype as one valid but remind people not to judge those with equal but different abilities by that which Temple excels as they’ll fail if its not their strengths and then their own strengths go unrecognised or people fail to think outside of the box in how to work with them in terms of their own abilities. For example, give me a new canopener and I really struggle, show me visually and I can rote learn it but not apply it. But help me though the actions with the can opener, show me something through seeing the actions, and after a few repetitions, I learn it but I learn it through doing, learning intellectually doesn’t link up well to doing in my case, even though the visual show and tell would work for Temple. Both are valid but most teachers don’t take the time to help people through the actions or show the doing. They think everyone learns intellectually and can then apply it. Hence promoting that stereotype only helps that particular group and entrenches the problems of those outside that group.
I have to question how “scientific” Grandin really is, partly due to the fact of which school of the sciences she came from, and it’s particular period. 40-50 years ago, you didn’t have to know that much about chemistry, neurology, biology or mathematics in behavioral psychology, and her writing clearly reflects that. She never went past basic algebra, and has admited herself that she doesn’t understand chemical equations. From what I’ve noticed from Animals In Translation (I still have yet to buy a used copy of it, and have only read it at bookstores), she only seems to have read most of the things regarding the latest in mainstream science from popular magazines and books geared toward the average audience, not towards today’s scientists and science students. Anything full of mostly scientific jargon she reads is probably geared towards behaviourists, but I have yet to guess if it is of the current contemporary variety.
I should of added, in addition, that-
One of the main problems I’ve noticed with her, over the years, is that she continues to project her own experiences onto others without even bothering to have it critiqued under a peer review process. At the very least, she should of bothered to consult some other autistics out there and ask how they really thought instead of just publishing something such as Thinking In Pictures, which has now made millions of non-autistics (and even a few auties who do share her way of thinking) think that we all think a like. Only recently has she come out with a new version of that book that now distances itself from that generalization fallacy. And yet, she has a new book out making an assumption about all forms of animals with a brainstem think like her now. I’d be very surprised if that piece of work was peer-reviewed, and if you bother to look at the good reviews for it out there, you’ll notice that the only science magazines giving it kudos are of the mainstream variety that are not always peer reviewed, much less full of scary equations she doesn’t need to or have to deal with in her current line of work. If she’s not even going to bother or at the very least demonstrate insterest in peer review and studies about her claims, why should she even be taken seriously as a scientist?
I totally support the right of anyone to give an opinion and see myself a social philosopher rather than an ‘expert’. I have a degree in sociology, linguistics and a postgraduate qualification in teaching but this doesn’t make me a psychologist. I have ten years experience informally studying natural medicine, immunology, cognition, neurology and 8 years hands on experience with around 600 people on the autistic spectrum as a hired consultant but I am not an expert, nor a scientist. I’d like to think we can have a flexible world in which people are free to give opinions based on extensive experience without those having to be scientific as long as those opinions help us raise questions, challenge stereotypes, expand knowledge in a given field. I was in the situation once where those with no qualification to do so claimed to give expert opinion on me and whilst I can grasp they each had their individual reasons for choosing to do so, this doesn’t make them experts anymore than someone who has made a cup of tea can be considered a chef.
I don’t know that Temple put her views forward as science. I think we can respect them as her views, her opinions and if those are interesting and raise ideas we hadn’t considered then that’s really social philosophy which I feel is too under-rated sometimes in a world where we all expect ‘science’ first. Because sometimes the ideas and questions come first and should drive the science to explore them. Remember that Temple herself may never have claimed expertise or science in this context as PR clads authors with all sorts of stuff they’d never say about themselves. The life of those in the public eye is never easy as people might imagine. It’s a lot of pressure and its easy for the public to forget these are real, feeling, human people who give opinions, make mistakes, and hopefully add to the public good somehow in one way or another. I know Temple has inspired a lot of people on the spectrum.
I’d like to think we can have a flexible world in which people are free to give opinions based on extensive experience without those having to be scientific as long as those opinions help us raise questions, challenge stereotypes, expand knowledge in a given field.
The problem her though is the current state of science education, at least in the US, and how the mainstream media protrays science. She feeds in to this problem, knowing or unknowingly, and it leads a lot of people out there unfortunately to think that it is the truth, and that she may have the science to back it up. It contributes to much of the public’s misunderstanding of scientific matters, which really bugs me.
I don’t know that Temple put her views forward as science. I think we can respect them as her views, her opinions and if those are interesting and raise ideas we hadn’t considered then that’s really social philosophy which I feel is too under-rated sometimes in a world where we all expect ’science’ first.
I think she does, by the the way she writes much of her work that is, which is geared at mainstream audiences. What is really needed here, in my opinion, is critical thinking and logic, but most of the public schools in my country don’t have it as a requirement, and the media here certainly doesn’t encourage it all.
Because sometimes the ideas and questions come first and should drive the science to explore them.
No argument there. But if you’ve read the interviews with her, you’ll notice that she tends to consider her hypothesis as facts first before even letting the testing or theoretical models out of the gate, and I believe that has misled a lot of people.
Remember that Temple herself may never have claimed expertise or science in this context as PR clads authors with all sorts of stuff they’d never say about themselves. The life of those in the public eye is never easy as people might imagine. It’s a lot of pressure and its easy for the public to forget these are real, feeling, human people who give opinions, make mistakes, and hopefully add to the public good somehow in one way or another.
Interviews and statements that she have made seem to contradict that, in my opinion, (though I am interested in references towards it, if you are capable of providing some) at least in the way she wants the public to take her seriously. I’m not doubting she’s human, and I share the same disorder, but if she is going to make a claim about the world in that particular matter, I’d prefer that she back it up or at the very least make a good argument to state her case for it, wether or not it is behind science. It could be about business, and other things.
I know Temple has inspired a lot of people on the spectrum.
No argument there. But it does not mean we shouldn’t be critical. I was very fond of your article critiqueing the interview Grandin made with WrongPlanet. I think she needs a lot more, and I eventually plan on coming out with a series of posts in one or two of my blogs about some of the problems with her arguments, mostly from Thinking In Pictures, money depending (minor financial issues).
Yes, there are a lot of folks have put forward their opinions as facts. I’ve put forward my experiences and those I encountered in my 8 years as consultant, as experiences and asked what these might tell us more broadly about assumptions, stereotypes, theories.
I think its important for anyone not to over identify selfhood with condition or have too much of one’s identity invested in one’s position (but I would say that, I’m a Taoist). I think we’d all benefit from being clear on whether we are giving opinion, citing experiences or putting forward rigourously tested facts stemming from an appropriate and extensive degree of first hand study and experience. As long as we know which of these angles we’re coming from, there’s no problem. Perhaps Temple is evolving in her position on that. Its also about ego – which many on the spectrum claim they don’t have (this regurigtates a stereotype that, having worked with many high achieving people with Aspergers, I’m not convinced is always true). Anyone who overly cares about their status, is competitive and really requires recognition or admiration probably does have a reasonable degree of ego invested. I have definitely met many on the spectrum at the Asperger’s end who don’t care at all about these things but I’ve certainly met those whose world rests on these things too. I think ego gets in the way of clarity. Many believe that logic cancels out ego, but I don’t agree. I’ve met highly logical people with just as much ego and fact is it skews their logic and narrows the bredth of their viewpoint.
I definitely think we should be critical of any opinion put forward as fact but that’s no excuse to go celebrity-bashing, ever. I do feel that the autism field is an area of science and its too often treated as a rampant market place with monopolies forming all the time, each with their showpieces, and if I had to say what I think the field should be about it should be about expanding understanding, building bridges of understanding, inspiring people with realistic and achievable goals, raising recognition of diversity WITHIN the spectrum and helping society not to see our brilliance or superiority but to see our equality in the wider social diversity. If Temple’s interviews or lectures or writings add to that, that’s great. If they regurgitate the same old stereotypes or create new ones that detract from that significantly, then over time people will lose interest and others will be heard. I’m one to trust to life. Maybe foolish, but I’m 42.
🙂
I have nothing against Temple Grandin but I really bristle at how much she speaks and everybody outside the autism community thinks she’s the prototype of all autistic people. When people tell me about this “accomplished autistic woman” named Temple Grandin as if she and my autistic daughter would naturally have so much in common I have to painstakingly undo so much of what they’ve learned. Just about none of Temple Grandin’s take on autism applies to my daughter. It’s all kind of tiresome for me. I should just keep a form letter on file so that whenever somebody brings up Temple Grandin’s name to me, I just give them a copy of the letter.
I have nothing against Temple, but I really bristle at how much she speaks and everybody outside the autism community think she’s the prototype for all people with autism. When people tell me about this accomplished woman with autism name Temple Grandin (as if I’ve never heard of her) trying to associate her with my daughter with autism, I have to undo so much of what they’ve learned as just about none of Temple’s take on autism applies to my daugher.
It’s all kind of tiresome for me. I should just keep a form letter available so that whenever Temple’s name comes up I just hand over the letter explaining how when Temple speaks, she speaks for Temple not for autism as a whole. There are many other widely varying autistic ways of being.
My daughter with autism is unlike Temple in most ways. However, we’ve enjoyed many aspects of her musings on and experiences with animals. Though I dislike when any person speaks in sweeping generalities to represent themselves and others, we appreciate Temple for what she’s accomplished, both for animals (in helping to improve their living conditions) and for persons with autism.