The Unseen Struggle: Writing, Thinking, and Gestalt Language Processing in the Age of AI
John Warner, a ‘veteran teacher’ and author of the upcoming ‘More Than Words: How to Think about Writing in the Age of AI,’ argues that writing and thinking are inseparable, viewing writing as not just a means of communication but as a tool for shaping thought. In his view, the developmental struggle involved in writing is essential for learning and cognitive growth, especially in the context of education. However, whilst this perspective may resonate with many, it unintentionally excludes the experiences of gestalt language processors (GLPs), particularly autistic individuals, whose relationship with writing and thinking follows a different path. For GLPs, writing often develops as one of the last literacy skills, and our cognitive process is more holistic and sensory-driven, involving a deep absorption of patterns and meaning. Instead of translating our thoughts directly into writing, GLPs often process language and concepts through non-linear and non-verbal methods, making Warner’s notion of writing as an intrinsic part of thinking feel misplaced. By focusing on this specific relationship between writing and thought, Warner’s argument overlooks the unique ways GLPs approach the task of writing and how their thinking may not always find immediate expression through written words.
The ‘Conventional View’ of Writing and Thinking
John Warner’s concerns about the role of AI in writing centre on the fear that generative tools, like ChatGPT, will remove the developmental struggle that is integral to learning how to write. For Warner, writing is not merely about producing text but about engaging in a challenging, often uncomfortable process that forces students to clarify their thinking and refine their ideas. He argues that this struggle is necessary for developing critical thinking and creativity, as it is through the friction of drafting, editing, and grappling with language that meaningful ideas emerge. Warner sees AI’s capacity to shortcut this process as a threat to authentic learning, potentially encouraging students to bypass the cognitive work that writing demands.
For many students, particularly those who are analytical language processors (ALPs), this argument holds weight. ALPs tend to approach language in a linear, step-by-step manner, where writing is closely tied to their thought process. For these learners, the act of writing is a natural extension of their analytical thinking, and the struggle of refining their writing directly enhances their cognitive development. However, Warner’s assumption that writing and thinking are intrinsically linked misses the mark for GLPs. The profound ignorance of GLPs in mainstream educational theory and practice is evident in works like Warner’s, which speak from a place of unawareness about how differently GLPs process language.
For GLPs, especially autistic GLPs like me, writing is often the last skill to develop and does not directly correspond to our cognitive processes. Our thinking tends to be more holistic, absorbing patterns, emotions, and sensory input before we even begin to put ideas into words. The developmental struggle Warner values in writing might manifest for GLPs in other areas, such as verbal expression or internal thought processing, meaning that equating writing with thinking overlooks the complexity of our cognitive experience. This unintentional exclusion highlights a gap in understanding that is all too common in educational discourse.
Writing as the Last Skill for Gestalt Language Processors
As both an autistic GLP and the author of Holistic Language Instruction, I know firsthand that writing often emerges as the final piece in the puzzle of literacy development for GLPs. Unlike ALPs, for whom writing is a natural extension of linear thinking, GLPs process language in a very non-linear way. This means that whilst we may excel in understanding complex patterns, emotions, and sensory experiences, translating these rich internal worlds into written language is a much later development. In fact, writing for GLPs is often delayed by a combination of factors, including executive functioning challenges, motor coordination difficulties, and the inherent complexity of translating holistic thoughts into the rigid structure of written language (see chapter 5).
For GLPs, writing is not an immediate or direct manifestation of thought. Where ALPs might think through writing, GLPs process and reflect on concepts verbally, non-verbally, or even emotionally long before we attempt to put these ideas into words. The task of breaking down a large, interconnected idea into smaller, linear parts, as writing demands, can be deeply frustrating and unnatural for us. Executive functioning issues such as working memory, planning, and organisation also make the writing process more laborious. Additionally, for many GLPs, challenges with fine motor skills add an extra layer of difficulty when it comes to writing by hand or typing, further delaying the development of fluent writing skills.
The disconnect between thinking and writing for GLPs is significant. Our thought processes often exist in a form that does not neatly fit into the conventions of written language, meaning that verbal or non-verbal processing frequently precedes the ability to express thoughts in writing by a wide margin. This is a major reason why mainstream education has so often failed to meet the literacy needs of GLPs, who make up roughly 40% of the human population. The education system’s heavy focus on writing as the primary evidence of thought has ignored the fact that for many GLPs, thinking and writing are not always interdependent. This is why I felt compelled to write my book, to offer a voice for GLPs whose experiences and needs have been sidelined for far too long in educational theory and practice.
How AI Can Help Gestalt Language Processors
Warner expresses deep concern that AI, by removing the struggle inherent in writing, undermines the cognitive development that writing demands. He argues that AI’s capacity to generate text and assist with drafting shortcuts the hard work necessary for critical thinking and creativity. Whilst his concerns may resonate with educators focused on ALPs (though they don’t know that they have this ALP-centric view), this viewpoint fails to consider how AI is a game-changer for GLPs, especially those with unique barriers to writing. For GLPs, writing is often not a natural extension of thinking, and the “struggle” Warner values might not be the most effective or constructive experience for all learners. In fact, AI could provide the kind of scaffolding that makes writing more accessible for GLPs, without undermining their cognitive growth.
For GLPs, AI tools could serve as a powerful support system by offering essential structures that help bridge the gap between holistic thought processes and the linear demands of writing. Tools like sentence starters, paragraph frames, and organisational aids can ease the overwhelming task of translating a large, interconnected gestalt into the segmented, structured form that writing requires. AI could help remove unnecessary barriers, such as the anxiety that often accompanies the blank page, by offering starting points that guide GLPs toward creating written content in a manageable way. Rather than removing the developmental struggle, these tools provide the necessary scaffolding that allows GLPs to approach writing with more confidence and less frustration, enabling them to engage in the writing process at their own pace.
Whilst some might worry that over-reliance on AI could hinder the development of fine motor skills or planning abilities, it’s worth questioning why the system is so focused on removing such a valuable tool. For GLPs, whose challenges with motor skills and executive functioning are well documented, these issues are often ongoing and deeply embedded in our neurology. AI offers a way to work around these difficulties rather than forcing individuals to struggle through them, freeing up cognitive resources for more important tasks like developing ideas and refining content. The educational system’s hesitancy to embrace AI as a support for the roughly 40% of the population who could truly benefit from it seems misguided. Instead of viewing AI as a crutch, we should recognise it as a tool that allows GLPs to access writing in a way that aligns with our cognitive strengths and needs. Rather than hindering their development, AI could be the key to unlocking our full potential as writers and thinkers.
Why Equating Writing and Thinking Can Be Harmful for Gestalt Processors
Warner’s equation of writing with thinking, whilst perhaps well-intentioned, devalues the cognitive strengths of GLPs. As an autistic GLP myself, I know that thinking often occurs in ways that don’t fit neatly into the structures of language, let alone writing. For GLPs, processing information involves absorbing patterns, emotions, and sensory data holistically. We often arrive at complex understandings without needing to translate those thoughts into writing at all. To equate writing with thinking, as Warner does, is to miss the profound ways in which GLPs engage with the world, and to reduce our intellectual engagement to a skill that may not be an appropriate reflection of our capabilities.
This assumption creates unnecessary barriers for GLPs, especially in educational contexts, where writing is often framed as the primary measure of intellectual engagement and progress. For GLPs, the struggle to write is not necessarily indicative of a lack of understanding or critical thinking—it’s simply a reflection of how our brains process information differently. By positioning writing as the gold standard of thought, Warner’s argument places undue pressure on GLPs, framing our cognitive processes as somehow incomplete or inadequate simply because we don’t fit the traditional narrative of how thinking should translate into writing. This creates an environment where GLPs are either forced to mask our natural processes or are unfairly judged based on an arbitrary standard of intellectual output.
Ignoring the nuances of GLP cognitive styles can lead to the exclusion of GLPs not only in educational settings but also in professional contexts. In my own experience, I’ve experimented with various AI tools, as documented in several humorous Substack articles, only to find that I often overtax them or that they’re too rooted in ableism and the medical model to be useful as sounding boards. Many teachers, however, rely on these tools to scaffold assignments, level readings, and create quick accommodations, unaware of how limiting these AI-generated solutions can be for someone with a gestalt processing style. Instead of being liberating, these tools often reinforce the notion that GLPs must conform to linear, conventional modes of thinking and writing in order to be deemed intellectually valid.
By equating writing with thinking, Warner—and much of mainstream educational theory—overlooks the rich cognitive processes of GLPs. This exclusionary framing not only misses the opportunity to engage with the diverse ways in which people think but also places GLPs at a disadvantage, as they are continually judged by standards that do not reflect their true intellectual capabilities. Recognising the need for more inclusive measures of thought and expression would help dismantle these barriers and create more equitable environments where GLPs can thrive without feeling forced to fit into an ill-suited mould.
Final thoughts …
The disconnect between John Warner’s perspective on writing and thinking, and the unique struggles of GLPs, highlights a larger issue embedded in neurodominant culture. Neurodominant culture assumes there is a “right” way to think, act, and process information, privileging linear, analytic modes of engagement whilst marginalising those who process the world differently. This dominance, reinforced by figures like Warner, supports a framework that excludes the experiences of GLPs and others who do not conform to these narrow expectations. By failing to acknowledge the existence of diverse cognitive styles, Warner and others perpetuate a system where GLPs are sidelined, and their strengths are ignored. This entrenched bias ensures that people like us never rise up to challenge these norms, keeping the dominant culture unchallenged.
AI presents both an opportunity and a complication in this context. Whilst Warner sees AI as a threat to the developmental struggle essential for learning, for GLPs, AI could provide critical support by scaffolding the writing process and making it more accessible. However, AI tools, often designed with neurodominant assumptions in mind, can also perpetuate ableist standards that reinforce exclusion. If AI is to be useful to GLPs, it must be developed with an understanding of our unique needs, offering genuine support rather than imposing additional barriers.
Ultimately, there is an urgent need for a more inclusive approach to writing instruction—one that recognises and values the diverse ways in which people think and communicate. As AI becomes more prevalent, educators must ensure that it enhances, rather than restricts, access for all learners. By moving away from the neurodominant framework and embracing a more flexible, inclusive model, we can create an environment where GLPs are not only acknowledged but empowered to thrive on their own terms.