Without worrying about whether adaptive behavior like the article describes is a good idea (I don't think it is), I want to take issue with this opening paragra

Without worrying about whether adaptive behavior like the article describes is a good idea (I don't think it is), I want to take issue with this opening paragraph: "Are you the visual type of person that thrive in an environment of photos and illustrations? Or do you prefer listening to a book instead of reading it? Or do you want to touch everything to make sure you understand it?" This is a watered-down restatement of the "learning styles" theory from educational psychology that, while almost never stated explicitly or coherently, is the view that different people have particular preferences for either visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning and interaction, and that these learning style preferences are more or less stable over time. The usual implication is that if you determine what a person's "style" is, you can adapt whatever you're trying to teach them to incorporate their preferred medium, and they will learn better than if you used, say, a visual lesson with an auditory learner. Despite its frequent repetition as fact in lay sources like this one, the learning styles theory has never been substantiated by scientific research. Assessments of learning styles show no predictive validity for individual differences in response to instructional methods intended to focus one style or another. Oxford neuroscientist Susan Greenfield writes, "After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that VAK, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits." "Learning styles" is bunk, and casually repeating it as though it were an established mainstream theory is doing a disservice to science. [End of slightly off-topic rant]