Mapping is not for everyone, as Jenny plausibly demonstrates. Since I myself am a big fan of mapping and of all kinds of visualization, I tend to agree with Howard (in her comment section) and believe that (almost) everyone benefits, after pushing on through the internal resistance. But Jenny is not yet convinced that the time is worth it. So, how would I try to convince her? This is an interesting challenge which forces me to think about what are MY main benefits or reasons, why am I convinced that it is worth the effort?
As a first response I think it has to do with constraints: feeling constrained by other ways of expression, and overcoming these constraints by spatial visualizations.
Why sounds “linear” thinking so deterrent to me, in contrast to “lateral” ? Because when I think of linear, I picture myself in a long depressing corridor
Long linear forums threads are an example that often feel like this: I have to read through all of the posts to understand the hidden connections among them. More generally, language itself is linear, and as Robert Horn says, it is a funnel, and rich embodied impressions have to be squeezed into it.
The cramping contraints are also perceivable when I am forced to use a hierarchical order instead of a more liberal network arrangement, or if an obtrusive user interface urges me to connect a new topic to some existing branch of a mindmap (as even Mindmanager does, even with floating topics). This aversion does not mean that I assign many topics to more than one pigeonhole. But I need to be able to do this, otherwise I feel just this strangulating constraint. (And no, using tags instead of categories does not help, because the long chaotic list of tags will end up in a long, alphabetic, deterrent linear list again!).