The book “Collaborative Intelligence” is on the 3 most-common of the 4 innate-mind-languages we think in.

• Visual-thinking
• Auditory-thinking
• Kinesthetic-thinking

It totally ignores the 4th.

• Implication-Pattern-thinking/Abstract-Thoughtshape-thinking

which, from what I’ve read, is possibly more than 50% of the physicists people.

I think in abstract-shapes, which means that instead of seeing the appearances of something, I need to see how it works, before I can then abstract-out its thoughtshape, which is what my mind holds onto.

I’ve no internal-visual, which is falsely-labeled “aphantasia” ( no-imagination ) by psychology.

I’ve plenty of imagination, but it works within the mind-function that I have, not in some mind-function I don’t have.

This difference allows me to “see through” appearances to more fundamental/underlying reality, much more easily than more-conventional minds do.

As Temple Grandin’s TED talk on kinds of minds pointed-out, however, I’m mindblind to many things that the more-common mind-functions catch:

She wouldn’t have put the emergency-generators at Fukushima at the bottom of a pit, beside a tsunami-infested sea, because she would have seen them flood ( she thinks in movies ).

I wouldn’t ever have noticed any potential problem, because I’d have been “looking at” the function withing each generator, & feeling the beneficial-protection of having them not easily attackable, or something.

You NEED to have all-4 innate-mind-languages working on any product/service that you’re going to release, as each has its own mind-blindnesses.

Don’t leave any 1 of 'em out!

But being of the least-common ( & ignored by much/all of the psychology profession/industry ), is a kind of superpower, when their prejudice isn’t grinding on one’s validity, fersure.

: P