My theory is that there are two kinds of thinkers: Language-thinkers and visual-thinkers. Language-thinkers understand the world in terms of language, whereas visual-thinkers understand the world in terms of images.
The benefit of language-thinking is that language is simpler than the world of images, so a language thinker's mind optimizes on things that can be expressed in words. For example, a language-thinker would easily be able to process things like triple-negatives since a triple negative is something that is purely linguistic. Communication comes easily to language-thinkers, and they are fast-talkers, because communication for them is a matter of reciting their thoughts, since their thoughts are already stored in the form of language. But the downside of being a language-thinker is that language-thinkers are incapable of understanding or recognizing concepts that there is no word for. And language-thinkers can easily fall prey to things like Orwellian language-manipulation, because if you change the language then you change the language-thinker's thoughts.
But a visual-thinker only uses language for the sake of communication, and visualizes the world in terms of images. He can recognize patterns and concepts that there is no word for. But he will have a harder time processing things like triple negatives, because his instinct will be to try to visualize a triple negative, and this is an inefficient way of processing it. And communication is more labor intensive, because his thoughts are stored in the form of images, so to communicate he will have to translate the images into language. But the benefit of this is that since language does not play a role in how he understands the world, his thoughts will not be affected by changing definitions of words.
there doesn't seem to be anything here