The Diverse Ways People Think, with Temple Grandin

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to The Lawyerist Podcast, a series of discussions with entrepreneurs and innovators about building a successful law practice in today’s challenging and constantly changing legal market. Lawyerist supports attorneys, building client-centered, and future-oriented small law firms through community, content, and coaching both online and through the Lawyerist Lab. And now from the team that brought you The Small Firm Roadmap and your podcast hosts

Zack Glaser (00:35):
Hi, I’m Zack Glaser

Ashley Steckler (00:36):
And I’m Ashley Steckler. And this is episode 4055 of The Lawyerist Podcast, part of the Legal Talk Network. Today, Zack is talking to Dr. Temple Grandin about neurodiversity and recognizing the strengths and differences in ourselves and our team

Zack Glaser (00:52):
Today’s podcast is brought to you by Albatross Legal Workspaces, Postali and Posh Virtual Receptionists. We wouldn’t be able to do this show without their support. So stay tuned and we’ll tell you more about them later on.

Zack Glaser (01:04):
So Ashley today I’m actually really excited about this, this interview I get to, or got to interview Dr. Temple Grandin about neurodiversity, about leaning into the, the strengths of our, how our own minds work. And it’s a topic that kind of is special to me. It hits close to my heart because I know my mind works differently than a lot of people than a lot of people on our team. And I really appreciate talking to Dr. Grandin about this.

Ashley Steckler (01:36):
Yeah, so we’ve actually had some recent conversations on our team about the different ways that each of us tends to think through and process the work that we’re doing together. And I feel Zack, even this week that we’ve kind of unlocked some best uses of our time and our team members and the way that they think differently than others. And is this person in this role, are we asking of them the right thing, their best use their creative energy, right? Their magic. Is this where it is for them. And we’ve had some conversations this week on our team where the answer is no, but we have another person on our team who actually really easily fits into what we need out of this particular role. And so how can we shift that?

Zack Glaser (02:27):
Which you know, that, that blows my mind sometimes because I, I think this is something that my mind doesn’t do, or I don’t like to do, frankly. And when somebody else comes into the picture and says, no, that’s what I do like to do. Yeah. It’s eye-opening to me, it’s, it’s very different. And I think a lot of lawyers run into this in their own practices. This is why we, we brought Dr. Grandin in because she talks a lot about how people’s minds work differently and how in her experience, she’s a professor of animal science at Colorado state university. And she’s designed a lot of livestock handling implements. She’s written a bunch of books, including Thinking in Pictures, Livestock Handling and Transport, The Autistic Brain, Animals in Translation. And recently she actually wrote a book called Navigating Autism. And that’s how I ran into Dr. Grandin or, or was introduced Dr. Grandin, but she talks a lot about how different minds can help each other produce better results, frankly. And I think we can do that in our law offices.

Ashley Steckler (03:35):
Yeah. I think sometimes we have this moment where we say, wait, you don’t struggle through that every day? Cause I do.

Zack Glaser (03:46):
Right. I personally, I think it’s, no, it is no surprise to a lot of people that I personally struggle with setting tasks in particular order, prioritizing things and things like that. Whereas my brain just kind of goes off on creative stuff

Ashley Steckler (04:01):
And solution-based

Zack Glaser (04:02):
Yeah. It, it lives there and loves that little area. Yeah. And thinks why would anybody not want to be in this place? Yeah. You know, a lot of times, and I think that’s the thing that’s kind of a little bit, it’s very eye-opening to me with this.

Ashley Steckler (04:15):
Yeah. I’m so excited to have this podcast and have this conversation with Dr. Grandin and, and hear you moving through that. Maybe finding some of those connections, but seeing the ways that it actually comes up with each of us in our everyday work and how in the legal industry, we can look for ways to really utilize the different types of brains, types of thinking types of how we process through information. So that we can work better together. I am a systems processes, person of, if this, then that, and we shouldn’t do this one thing first you and I have those conversations. A lot of Zack, I know you’re really excited about doing this but that’s step seven, right. I’m on step two. Right, right, right. And so working together in those ways,

Zack Glaser (05:06):
Absolutely.

Ashley Steckler (05:08):
So now here’s Zack’s conversation with Temple.

Temple Grandin (05:11):
Hi my name is Temple Grandin and I am professor of animal science at Colorado State University. And we’re gonna talk a lot about different ways that people think I’m a visual thinker. This really helped me in my work designing livestock handling facilities.

Zack Glaser (05:27):
Dr. Grandin I, I really appreciate you being with us here. And yes, I, I did want to kind of talk about the different ways that the people think and how we can kind of, if we accept that and recognize that work better together, I got introduced to you through I guess your most recent book Navigating Autism, but you’ve written a tremendous amount of books. I, I can’t even count them, but certainly there are a lot of books that you’ve written on. Well, you you’re very well thought of in, in this space and you’re very well respected in the, you know, cattle behavior industry as well. But yes, I, I did kind of wanna talk about how our minds work differently and I’ve seen some interviews with, with you discussing just that. So if you don’t mind, let’s kind of jump into this idea of neurodiversity and frankly, just thinking differently, approaching things differently.

Temple Grandin (06:16):
Well, maybe I’ll just start out and talk about when I first started working cattle behavior back in the early seventies, I was watching cattle go through shoots to get vaccinated. And I noticed that they’d stop at a shadow. They’d stop at a coat on a fence, maybe a shining reflection off a vehicle and other people weren’t noticing these things. It was obvious to me to look at what the cattle were seeing now, at that time, when I was in my twenties, I did not know that other people didn’t think in pictures the same way I do. And it was a shock when I finally learned when I was in my late thirties that most other people think in words, rather than in pictures . So I’ve gotten really interested in different ways that people think and how different kinds of thinkers can work together in, in a complimentary way.

Zack Glaser (07:01):
I’ve seen you talk about this in designing some of the systems for the cattle industry, in the idea of somebody who designs it versus the engineer who might create a specific piece of it and us needing both of those minds in there.

Temple Grandin (07:18):
Well, you need both the minds. And in fact, I got a new book coming out called Visual Thinking where I’m gonna discuss in detail. A lot of the research that different kinds of thinking exist within research on this. And then a lot of people are mixtures of different types of thinking. Hmm. I am, what’s called an Object Visualizer. Everything I think about is a picture. Okay. Absolutely terrible at higher math and algebra. Another kind of mind is a computer programmer, your mathematician chemist physics good at math. They think in patterns, I think in pictures, a lot of engineers think in patterns. And then of course the law industry, you have a lot of people that think in words. So the first step is realizing that different kinds of thinking exists and how they can have complementary skills.

Zack Glaser (08:06):
Right. And seeing that we may be talking, you know, as lawyers, you know, people that a lot of times think in words that we may be talking that way and in a way that communicates to people that we think in that we assume, think in words, but that is obviously not the case 100% of the time. How do you kind of approach talking with, or communicating with somebody that, you know, doesn’t necessarily think like you do?

Temple Grandin (08:33):
Well, the first step is just realizing that they think differently. Okay. And one thing I’ve noticed about laws is they’re extremely vague. And I’ve done a lot of work on,writing guidelines for animal welfare . And I like to make rules that are clear, like traffic rules, stop signs, mean stop speeding’s measured with a device that measures how fast you’re going. It’s something that’s a lot more objective. And if you write something like handle cattle properly, what does that mean? Right. One person’s idea of proper handling might be beating them. Another person’s idea of proper handling would definitely not be beating them. Right. You see, that’s an example of a vague guideline handle cattle properly. I hate those kind of guidelines because I train auditors to audit things. So, you have rules like on the use of electric products or yelling at cattle, don’t yell at cattle.

Temple Grandin (09:25):
You know, you need to have things that are clear and then I can measure things like slipping and falling during handling, which is definitely bad. But when you’re working in supply chain management and I worked on implementing the McDonald’s animal welfare audits years ago, you have to have very clear guidance. So if this auditor assesses it or another auditor assesses, it it’s the same. Okay. The police don’t just go out there and say, you think you’re speeding, then measure it with that. And then you get in court and argue about the calibration of that device, but that’s a lot more objective than something like an ADA reasonable accommodation or some other thing was commercially reasonable. Ugh, I can’t deal with that in my supply chain, because if I’m running a supply chain, I have to have very clear guidance on things that are not acceptable in my supply chain. It cannot be vague.

Zack Glaser (10:16):
Right. And that’s an interesting idea where a lot of us who went through law school and were trained to try to think a particular way when we do approach these things, we, we try to write them in a way that makes sense to us and maybe how we think, but doesn’t necessarily, well, certainly doesn’t jive with how everybody thinks and recognizing that in the writing of our laws, the writing of our code, and even the writing of our contracts, I think is pretty important because if I’m writing a contract and, and you and I are going into business together, then it seems like I would need to write it pretty deliberately with very specific clauses that laid out exactly what would happen, as opposed to saying, Hey, we’re gonna do a handshake deal and we just want to treat each other well,

Temple Grandin (11:07):
Well, let’s go back to the things that I know the most about okay. Let’s take an animal, an animal protection guideline in Europe and talk about preventing avoidable suffering. I don’t know what that means, right? Prevent avoidable suffering. No, but that’s actually written in legislation in Europe that is so vague. How do I enforce that? Where I can enforce something like it. If you’re a, let’s take stunning at a big meat packing plant we had it in a guideline. And if you can’t make 95% of those cattle instantly unconscious, you kicked off the approved supplier list. That’s clear, but avoidable suffering. I don’t even know how to train people to assess that,

Zack Glaser (11:50):
Right? No, that that’s a good point. The vagaries there, it doesn’t make it easy to deal with in a real world. So I approach law a lot of times from a computational stance of trying to automate things or make things, something that a computer might be able to understand. And I think that the vagaries that you’re talking about certainly don’t align themselves to allowing us to automate things or make them into something that a computer would understand.

Temple Grandin (12:18):
Well as working with, you know, commercial supply chain auditing systems for the last, you know, over 20 years had a horrible incidence about 15 years ago, where one of the commercial auditing companies was sued over the exact wording of the guideline was a gigantic mass. And then I had to go back to the guideline lawyer-proof it and make it much more exact. So it’s clear like traffic stop signs mean stop Don slow down. They mean stop wearing a seatbelt means you wear a seatbelt don’t text and drive that’s clear.

Zack Glaser (12:50):
Right, right.

Temple Grandin (12:51):
Kind of guidance. I like,

Zack Glaser (12:53):
I like that phrase, lawyer-proofing I like it may making it where lawyer

Temple Grandin (12:57):
That’s exactly what I did

Zack Glaser (12:58):
Right. Making it to where lawyers can’t screw it up, frankly, or argue about it or, or something like that.

Temple Grandin (13:04):
Some of these things where they talk about something being commercially reasonable, they were talking, this was a situation where, how much of a market to some business have and what was commercially reasonable? I don’t know what that means.

Zack Glaser (13:18):
Right. I don’t know that anybody knows exactly what that means.

Temple Grandin (13:21):
That goes along with preventing avoidable suffering. I don’t know what that means either.

Zack Glaser (13:25):
Right. Well, so I, I think that leads into when we approach things from a different mindset. When we approach things from a, from a different angle, we have inherent miscommunications.

Temple Grandin (13:36):
That’s right.

Zack Glaser (13:37):
If we’re not thinking about how people think differently, then we’re going to have major miscommunications in some big problems, frankly. So how do you go about kind of keeping in mind that people do think differently? And then I hate to use the word ACC, but adjust.

Temple Grandin (13:56):
Well, let’s look at it. It’s stuff that I work with with engineering stuff, let’s take a food processing plant . And I’m gonna give you an example of how the different kinds of thinkers work on different parts of the plant. And my kind of mind does what I call the clever engineering department. Okay. Mechanically complicated equipment. Think packaging, equipment, think something that bottles of beverage there’s all kinds of equipment they use in, in the meat industry where it’s mechanically clever, you know, think inside of the paper feed on a copying machine. Okay. The people that often do those things are the visual thinkers. Sometimes they haven’t even graduated from high school, but they invent all kinds of equipment. Then you take your more mathematically inclined degreed engineer. They do the boilers refrigeration for chilling the food, make sure the roof won’t collapse, the things that need to be calculated.

Temple Grandin (14:46):
And then my kind of mind who are the shop guys, they don’t touch boilers and refrigerations, they don’t understand them. And I’ve seen this division of engineering in every single food company I’ve worked with. And I’ve worked with a bunch of ’em. And when I started learning more about the different kinds of minds and some of the research, I actually went back through all my jobs and figured out that maybe about 20% of some of the very skilled people that invented equipment with autistic, dyslexic or ADHD. So we need those diverse minds. But the first step is realizing that they’re different verbal thinkers on a lot of things tend to over generalize. You know, we’ve gotta do something like have an inclusive environment, whatever that means. Right. But I’m used to working with commercial supply chain managers, and then I’ve gotta determine that supplier is that supplier now outta compliance with my guideline, it’s gotta be clear. On, what’s not acceptable in my things that would be not acceptable for suppliers to do helping cattle handling, for example, or dragging live down cattle. Absolutely not active abuse failed on it. Right.

Zack Glaser (15:52):
Okay.

Temple Grandin (15:53):
You see, then you were talking about some lawyers like they to argue it. Right. I, my background’s all in building things and designing things and I’m wanna make sure the roof doesn’t fall down. You know, that the things are gonna work and I don’t really wanna argue anything. I wanna have clear guidance. Okay. It’s very clear that it’s against the law to rob a bank. So don’t do it

Zack Glaser (16:16):
Right. Well if you’ll bear with me for one second, we’re gonna take a quick little break to hear from our sponsors and we’ll be right back. And Dr. Grandin, if we could, I’d like to discuss kind of having those mindsets or different mindsets work together and understanding our own mindset.

Zack Glaser (16:32):
The Lawyerist Podcast is brought to you by Posh Virtual Receptionist. As an attorney. Do you ever wish you could be in two places at once? You could take a call while you’re in court, capture a lead during a meeting or schedule an appointment with a client while you’re elbow deep in an important case. Well, that’s where Posh comes in. Posh is a team of professional US-Based live virtual receptionists who are available 24/7/365, they answer and transfer your calls. So you never miss an opportunity. With posh handling your calls. You can devote more time to billable hours in building your law firm. And the convenient Posh app puts you in total control of when your receptionist steps in. So if you can’t answer, POSH can, and if you’ve got it, Posh is always just to tap away. With Posh, you can save as much as 40% off your current service provider’s rates. Even better, Posh is extending a special offer to Lawyerist listeners, visit posh.com/lawyerist to learn more and start your free trial of Posh Live Virtual Receptionist Services. That’s posh.com/lawyerist.

And by Albatross Legal Workspaces. When running any business including a law practice there are critically important operations that are often overlooked and ignored by lawyers. Top on that list is data security, ransomware protection, data leaks, and data backups. Those tasks can seem unimportant and time-consuming or an added cost. And even with IT teams involved, they are often misconfigured and mismanaged.

Albatross Legal WorkSpaces is an excellent solution for law firms to streamline those types of operations. Albatross Legal Workspaces was built to be the all-in-one cloud office for law firms. It stores all your applications, files, desktops, and servers on your own private cloud that is accessible from anywhere. No need for expensive desktop or server upgrades or unresponsive IT companies coming to the office; and the mundane yet-critical security and backup operations are seamlessly integrated and hassle-free. The service also includes a 24/7 IT Help Desk. Albatross Legal Workspaces covers you from A to Z.

To learn more and receive one month of free service please visit https://albatross.cloud/lawyerist that’s albatross with a double s . Again that is: {spelled} A L B A T R O S S .cloud/lawyerist

And by Postali. Finding a marketing partner for your firm can be challenging. Are you getting sound advice? Is your marketing agency always working in your best interest? You shouldn’t have to worry about these things. At Postali, they believe marketing companies should adopt the same duty to their clients that is required of the legal profession. For this reason, they require that all team members sign a fiduciary oath to act in good faith and put clients’ best interests ahead of their own. They service with care, candor, and loyalty. Postali is a full-service digital marketing agency exclusively for lawyers. To learn more about how they’re different, visit postali.com/lawyerist.

Zack Glaser (19:49):
All right. So we’re back with Dr. Grandin and before the break, we were talking about recognizing different mindsets or different ways that people think and how those bring different strengths to the table and being able to, to work together. That leads me to think about putting together a team of people that do think differently, respect the way that each other think and are able to get more done. Has that been your experience? And I maybe just kind of blatantly assuming here, but has that been your experience in your career where, when you did have people that complimented you the both of you or the three of you or, or what have you were able to get more done?

Temple Grandin (20:32):
Oh, absolutely. Because one of the things about being a visual thinker that makes me good at understanding animal behavior and understanding mechanical devices. But when I write, I tend to ramble some. So in my new book, Visual Thinking, they’ll be coming out very soon. My co-author Betsy Lerner is a totally verbal person. So I would do the rough draft come up with a lot of, you know, original information and Betsy would reorganize it in the most beautiful way. So that’s an example of an object visualizer, like me working with a totally verbal person and we made a great team. And as we worked together, we learn more and more about how we think differently, but we also learn how we could also work together as a great team, you know, using our different ways of thinking. I also wanna emphasize that there’s a lot of people that are kind of mixtures of different kinds of thinking.

Temple Grandin (21:20):
The other thing let’s look at risk. Engineers, calculate risk, visual thinkers, like me can see risk. And one of the things we talk about in the new book is the Fukushima disaster. And simple water-tight doors. Would’ve prevented it from happening. And then what I’ve realized that the engineering people calculate the risk and that some of the mathematically inclined engineers don’t see what would happen if the water flooded the site and drowned of the electrically driven, emergency cooling pump with disastrous results. See, when you think about it, especially, it’s actually very simple. Electric pumps don’t run under water

Zack Glaser (21:58):
No. And if you see that in your head, if you see an electric pump drowned by water, it’s not gonna work, you know? Absolutely.

Temple Grandin (22:07):
It’s not gonna work. And all I need to know about that reactor is if that electrically operated pump doesn’t run when I need it. I mean, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of trouble.

Zack Glaser (22:17):
Absolutely, absolutely. So, you know, kind of talking about you and your co-author of the newest book, and we’ll put a link to your book in the show notes, but talking about that, how do you find those people that do compliment you and how do you kind of hold your own space of saying, this is what I do well, and I do this well, but it’s okay that somebody else does this other section. Well,

Temple Grandin (22:44):
Well, you need to have both, let’s go back to the food processing plant. You’ve got to have good refrigeration systems to keep food cold and that’s the job of the more mathematically inclined engineer where my kind of mind’s good at I’m gonna call mechanically clever equipment. If you go back and look at all the things the patent did, when it first started, it was all mechanical devices, the cotton gin, the Reaper, the sewing machine the six shooter gun. These were all clever mechanical things. And now you’ve got patents on things like computer programs and stuff like that. But in the beginning, all the patents were for mechanical devices. See, that’s the visual thinking mind. But then when you get more complicated things, I’m not gonna design refrigeration equipment. I don’t know how to do the math. That’s required to do that, but if we’re gonna have a food processing plant, we’re gonna have to have the, all the equipment mechanical equipment. We also have to have refrigeration. That’s gonna work. So that’s an example of the mathematical mind and my kind of mind visual thinker working together.

Zack Glaser (23:47):
Right. And that makes a lot of sense. But I, I think from a lawyer’s standpoint, a lot of times, and I think there are a lot of jokes about this, but like, we think we can do everything. And to me, there’s a definitely a certain amount of humility that comes with saying, listen, my mind works this way, and these are my strengths. And these are my weaknesses. And recognizing for me specifically, recognizing the weaknesses and saying, I’m okay with letting that go because somebody else that’s their strength. I think that’s a difficult thing to do though.

Temple Grandin (24:22):
Yeah. See, the thing is most of my stuff is engineering stuff. So you look at something like the Boeing max crash. When I found out what an angle of attack sensor was, and I could then see how fragile it was. And I go, wait a minute, wired up the plane’s computer. That fragile thing. Didn’t tell the pilots, I’m going. You gotta be kidding, but you see, when I talk about it, I see it. It’s not abstract. In fact, if they’d had a visual thinker on the team, the Boeing max accident would probably have never have happened.

Zack Glaser (24:52):
And you’re talking about this small little,

Temple Grandin (24:55):
Because would’ve you talk a little fragile thing, the size of a Sharpie pen that sticks out under the cockpit window, that measures air angle. And I don’t wanna go into all full explanation of it, but you don’t have a very delicate device that measures air angle they wired a single one of those up to computer that controls the plane. Okay. And then they forgot to tell the pilots about

Zack Glaser (25:16):
It. And so if that breaks off, which it’s Sharpie, basically

Temple Grandin (25:21):
When you break the Sharpie off, the plane thinks it’s stalling. When it’s not so the computer keeps pushing the nose down and the poor pilot’s trying to pull it back up

Zack Glaser (25:30):
And you, you wind up with catastrophe. Absolutely.

Temple Grandin (25:33):
Absolutely. Well, it was catastrophe. And you see, if you think verbally, you angle of attack sensor, you don’t see it. When I found out what that was, and I saw how fragile it was. A pigeon can knock that off a plane. You see, I see it. Now the plane has two of them. You wire the computer up to two of them, not just one. Okay. Let’s think about it. Just very, very simply a visual thinker on the team. I think in the beginning, would’ve said, Hey, no, that thing is too fragile. You can’t just trust one of those.

Zack Glaser (26:06):
Right? You can’t just wire one of those into there, but yet the visual thinker may not be able to do, like you’re saying the complex calculations that are required to make the thing work

Temple Grandin (26:16):
Well, that’s where you need to have both. Right. Cause the visual thinker’s gonna say that’s so fragile. A pigeon can rip that off a plane. And you can’t just have the computer wired to one of ’em you’ve see. Now then all kinds of calculation on figuring out how to make a plane fly. Yeah. You’ve gotta have mathematicians involved in that. See, there’s a place for both types of design and engineering, the visual thinking side of design, and then the mathematical side. You need to have both mm-hmm

Zack Glaser (26:43):
See. That’s that’s a fascinating idea because I think that a lot of people will look and say, okay, there’s engineering and have that into one label, one lump of, of people. But, but you’re saying there’s even specific areas within that and different ways that our minds can think and approach the problems, even within something as specific as engineering.

Temple Grandin (27:07):
And unfortunately, lots of times the guy that does the clever engineering is a guy in the shop may have not hardly graduated from high school. But these people laying out tire factories. I’ve worked with them. They’re very, very good at it. Now let’s take the Mars Rover. I looked up the place with the cameras were. I found the cameras, pictures of ’em before they were installed. They’re not very, very big there’s the degree engineers, but then there’s also the guys in the shop. And somebody built that camera on a workbench and it’s got beautiful hand done wiring. That is mission critical. It often doesn’t get enough credit. I’ve seen patents where that first author was degreed engineer, but the invention was actually made by the guy working in the shop. Doesn’t get the credit. They should be getting for it.

Zack Glaser (27:56):
I think that’s a really good point about the different ways that the, that we think in kind of frankly, respecting the different ways that people approach problems, the different ways that they think about things and saying from a, again, from a lawyer standpoint, you know, we have a tendency to think, oh, well, if you’re not, if you don’t think in words, then you’re not gonna be able to do this or something like that. And I think it’s a terrible way to think,

Temple Grandin (28:21):
See the word thinkers, organize things. You have to have organizations,word thinkers tend to over-generalize, not and visual thinkers may be put in too much detail. And then the combination of working together just to right. Amount of detail, because I think regulations written with words like preventing avoidable suffering in an animal or handle cattle properly are terrible because it’s so vague. How do you enforce that in a fair way?

Zack Glaser (28:49):
Right, right. No, that that’s a, a good point. And if, if you have other people at the table moving that forward, moving those codes forward, then you hopefully will have things written in a, in a better, different way.

Temple Grandin (29:04):
Well, I think some people like ’em vague, but , if you’re running a commercial supply chain, you have got to have stuff that’s not vague. You have to make it very clear things that are not acceptable in your supply chain.

Zack Glaser (29:17):
I think that’s exactly right. And to me, we can liken that to, okay, well, yes, maybe lawyers or, or some lawyers like the code or things to be vague so they can argue about it. But frankly, your internal systems for your company certainly shouldn’t be the way that you write your engagement letters, the way that you intake phone calls or bring people into your company as clients. Those certainly shouldn’t be written in a vague way. And maybe having somebody that doesn’t think in words would be beneficial for, you know, most law offices.

Temple Grandin (29:56):
Well, you see, you need to have both because the visual thinkers tend to ramble and the mathematical thinkers put in way too much detail. You see, you need to have all three kinds of thinkers. Let’s just take my grandfather MIT trained engineer, co inventor of the autopilot for airplanes mathematically inclined. He worked with another guy who came up with an idea for making an autopilot for an airplane that everybody in aviation thought was really ridiculous and he was calling a visual thinker and they worked together in aloft tinkering and tinkering and tinkering. And then the invention was stolen and the stolen invention was in every plane in World War II. Oh, right now this is where if he should have had a lawyer of verbal thinker prevent the invention from being stolen,

Zack Glaser (30:43):
That’s a good point that you, yeah. Having all three of those minds there. And, and I think it’s beneficial to let them be complimentary to each other. But I think there are a lot, a lot of attorneys out there that don’t necessarily feel that they fit into that language thinkers box. And I kind of want to just talk about that. That’s okay. You know, being the visual thinker at a law office, if you are the lawyer or even being a mathematical thinker at a law office and, and leaning into those, to those strengths that are there that are, that are within your own mind.

Temple Grandin (31:17):
Well, you take a visual thinker. I’d be really good at figuring out what causes plane crashes. When the Boeing max first crash happened. I had two pieces of information. The plane was only a few months old. And then I looked up that flight radar and when it was taking off, it looked like a rollercoaster. And I got to thinking about it when I know about airplanes and the next day I gave a talk at a conference and I go, Boeing is gonna be in deep poo over this , there’s something drastically wrong with the plane. I was right.

Zack Glaser (31:47):
Right.

Temple Grandin (31:47):
Only with two pieces of information, because I could see, I mean, I’ve been on hundreds and hundreds of takeoffs. Nobody goes up and down when they, no, when you take off and why would a plane that new have a problem? There’s a brand new airplane.

Zack Glaser (32:01):
Right? Right. It, it theoretically wouldn’t have a mechanical failure unless it was in the design somewhere.

Temple Grandin (32:09):
Well, and I said, I had those two pieces of information and at that talk I gave the next day and I just said, well, there is something wrong with this plane, something serious. Right. I didn’t know what, at that time that’s a

Zack Glaser (32:20):
Good point. I was right. Yeah. Well, Dr. Grandin I think we’re kind of coming down to the, the edge of our time. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today and talking about the different ways that our, our minds think and recognizing and leaning into our, our own diversity of our brains. I, I appreciate you the time.

Temple Grandin (32:41):
It’s really good to be here. My new book is Visual Thinking, temple Grandin and Betsy Lerner, and it’s available for pre-orders right now on Amazon.

Zack Glaser (32:50):
Fantastic. Well, we will put a link to that into the show notes. And so if anybody wants to, they can go. And by that I know I will, because I was very impressed with the most recent book that you had called navigating autism. Well, Dr. Grandin thank you so much for, for being with me.

Temple Grandin (33:05):
Well, it was wonderful to talk to you. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
The Lawyerist Podcast is edited by Britany Felix. Are you ready to implement the ideas we discuss here into your practice? Wondering what to do next? Here are your first two steps. First. If you haven’t read The Small Firm Roadmap yet, grab the first chapter for free at Lawyerist.com/book. Looking for help beyond the book? Let’s chat about whether our coaching communities, are right for you. Head to Lawyerist.com/community/lab to schedule a 10-minute call with our team to learn more. The views expressed by the participants are their own and are not endorsed by Legal Talk Network. Nothing said in this podcast is legal advice for you.