> If you think a study disproves something ... That wasn't the comment. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So, I don't really know why the parent

> If you think a study disproves something ... That wasn't the comment. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So, I don't really know why the parent posted that. Or why you try to imply counter evidence, but don't name any. > trivially obvious It's something you see on a street intersection? I'm kidding, but i don't agree. I don't even agree that the problem is framed correctly. Somebody mentioned "isomorphism" in this thread, which is a very important notion. Different methods of learning are used to learn different things. The things are in principle in different domains. The things might be isomorphic, ie. readily transferred from one domain to another, but they are not equal. A painting of a square is not the same as a verbal description of it. On the one hand, nobody is equally skilled in all domains. On the other hand, there should be some basic skills that are necessary to solve certain problems. So, either everyone who isn't comfortable with a given "learning style" will inherently fail to solve corresponding fundamental problems, or there are multiple ways to solve a problem effectively -- which ideally would mean the student can choose the problems of interest and capability. In conclusion, both hypothesis are true at the same time, but you are assuming a misguided context. Of course there might exist different ideas of what's elementary or fundamental.