I am very skeptical about this. How do people propose to know what goes on inside an animal's head? By taking a very specific set of human standards, testing animals by those standards, and then extrapolating the findings? And how does Grandin, as an autist, propose to know what non-autist thought is like? What she says there is just a particular neuro-linguistic theory speaking. Then there is the question of what psychological ego defense mechanisms does a famous (fame-seeking?) autist have and how do they manifest? It's not like autists would automatically be beyond ego defense mechanisms. What if all human thought is principally the same, and the differences are only in how people explain and justify their thinking, esp. in social situations where they try to maintain a particular self-image and evoke a particular image of themselves in others? To me, Grandin's self-descriptions spell "I'm really cool, you know" between the lines. Or, calling upon a different neuro-linguistic theory, we can conceive of the whole matter differently. I remember reading in an old Hindu text about pigeons, and how a pigeon thinks about how to mate, raise their young, how to feed etc. And it seems evident that the text is clearly referring to pigeons, the birds, that it's not a metaphor, not a fable, and it ascribes animals the ability to think, feel and will, just as humans think, feel and will. In the West, it has been Christianity that popularized the divide between animals and humans - the famous "animals have no souls." In some other cultures, all living beings are considered essentially the same, they just happen to be outwardly in different bodies - some as birds, some as plants, some as humans, etc.. Imagine how different our approach to neurolinguistics would be, if we had started out with ontological positions like the Hindus.