I'm not sure if there are people here with whom I can discuss this topic, but I'll try.
There are 2 main types of thinking: logical (induction and deduction) and linguistic. language thinking is a processor that executes instructions. This is actually a model of a modern computer. That is why a modern computer is demanding on memory but has limited processing power. The autistic brain, if we consider the canonical autist is the Rain Man, has precisely the language type of thinking.
Another parallel in IT is the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning in AI. Unsupervised learning is a method based on logic and associative memory. Learning with a teacher comes down to memorizing instructions for later execution.
There is two types of thinking, those that thing there are two types of thinking and those that don't.
On a serious note, sure, verbal processing is different than visual processing and higher order processing that we refer to as induction and deduction. Curiously, you left out abduction, which is different than the complexities of processing language and thinking verbally. But I don't consider these to be categorically distinct. Perhaps it is just that we lack sufficient technical definition of them that would draw those lines where borrowing from best colloquial language fails. Perhaps it is just that in practice, the demands of functionality requires that we can't distinguish between them in practice. But from my practical experience....
My job is to analyze incomplete and conflicting data from the field and figure out what they did. I use abduction, deduction, context, axioms, visual models, language models, and language analysis (what's he trying to say?"} , to craft carefully worded questions, employing understanding of individual psychology, and language skills to elicit additional technical information in the most efficient way possible without overburdening the group with excess context so as to not distract them but still burrow down to the one question that best focuses them on the exact info needed. They all interact. I am attentive to recognizing the distinction between different processes because efficiency in it is paramount to production level processing of information. Sometimes it is simple, sometimes complex, but in the end, I get something of a gestalt that is the most reasonable and least problematic interpretation. Arg. Yeah, sometimes we do get migraines, anxious, blood sugar slumps, or need too much coffee. But then, who doesn't?
From a purely physiological standpoint, what we have is a human being that has a handful of specific senses, visual and auditory being the two most effective. I do find that I can think more emotionally, that is change the emotional content which changes the context and the interpretation. Kinda like running the information through feelings like denial, anger, bargaining, etc. Those become visual, verbal and physical thinking skills that have distinct differences. Oh, and of course, there is the physical thinking skills of athletes. Verbal thinking is supposedly developed later and is internalized verbalization of a social process of communication that expands on the auditory processing. Those expand into a system of more symbolic processing that we see more highlighted in math skills. The two aren't exactly distinct. As I recall, the language and mathematical processing are side by side in the brain, overlap, and trade resources depending on demand. I find that symbolizing the visual information into written symbols formatted to highlight patterns and the use of prose, (Hey, explain it to me like I'm a four year old) helps me make connections where visual processing and memory become overwhelmed.
What about that some are emergent properties of other more fundamental processes? It is my understanding that when viewed from the workings of neurobiology, the categories that we recognize from a cognitive perspective is not how the brain is physically organized. The author also said that it it better, in practice, to think of it in terms of the emergent processes that we identify and being things like deduction or verbal thinking, than it does to get into the minutia of how all the brain is organized neurologically. Still, I can't help to consider that the fundamental nature of our senses and how that maps into the brain has a huge effect though, from there, it gets a bit fuzzy.
