1. This WSJ article is truly an infuriating example of science reporting.

    Here is a myth they debunk by proving it, “Environments rich in stimuli improve the brains of preschool children.” They say that removing stimuli causes mental deficits. They say that adding more stimuli to a stimuli-rich environment does not improve things. WHICH JUST PROVES THE POINT. Children benefit from an environment rich in stimulus. That is not a myth! The myth is that playing Bach or hiring tutors or buying toys produces a richer set of stimuli.

    And then the next, “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style, whether auditory, visual or kinesthetic.” They go on to explain that our understanding of the word “preference” is naive. Way to go, but you have to really stretch to find a definition for “preferred learning style” that doesn’t turn this “myth” into a tautology.

    They’re just trying to say “you, reader, are stupid,” and only sharing useful information as an afterthought. My least favorite trend in science reporting.

Comments are closed.