Oh splendid. Yet another theory that breaks down people into "types" and tells us that we have to handle these different "types" in different ways. I'll put i

Oh splendid. Yet another theory that breaks down people into "types" and tells us that we have to handle these different "types" in different ways. I'll put it on the shelf next to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, the four hippocratic humours, "left-brain vs. right-brain", Myers-Brigg, the various zodiac systems, blood group personality theory (very popular here in Japan) and all the other dross Take, for instance, Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. That's the one that talks about kinaesthetic intelligence, verbal intelligence and so on. It is unusual, because it actually makes a prediction that we can test: students do best when taught in a style that most closely matches their intelligence type (the "meshing hypothesis"). There are many studies that claim to test and support the meshing hypothesis. But, to cut a long story short, most of them test a different version of the hypothesis that is so weak as to be almost tautological. The very few that really do test the meshing hypothesis invariably do NOT support it. After 30 years of looking for evidence to support Gardner's theories, the American Psychological Association gave up, and announced that, unless and until somebody produces some hard evidence, they will consider the theory discredited. So is that the end for multiple intelligence? Hardly! Teacher training colleges still teach it. Elite schools still publish reports describing the wonderful results they got when they modified their curriculum according to Gardner's recommendations. (Invariably, it turns out they did nothing of the sort. They just introduced more variety into their classroom activities -- they certainly DIDN'T target particular activities towards particular learners.) And so on. You cite the following evidence in support of Kahler's theories: 1. The Clintons support it. 2. NASA talked to Kahler when they were developing their astronaut recruitment program. To the former, I say, "so what"? As for the latter, I actually took a nanosecond to follow the links you gave, and what they said was something like, "Kahler told the NASA scientists to screen out the quitters". Well, I guess that's an important point, but I'd hardly call it a complete vindication for his theories. So I scream "bullshit!". And I will continue to do so until you show me: 1. A non-trivial, falsifiable prediction grounded in Kahler's work. 2. A good quality study that tests this prediction and finds in Kahler's favor.