I’ve got bad news for fans of the so-called learning styles – visual, auditory, kinesthetic or tactile.  They have been discredited time and again, but the neuromyth proves stubborn, and many teachers still believe – and teach to – the myth.  Reading about similar myths around intelligence, and intelligence testing, I came across one study that suggested that, rather than summing up all human intelligence with a number (via an IQ test), it makes more sense to talk about at least three different aspects of intelligence, or mental networks:  short-term or working memory, reasoning processes, and verbal ability.

At the risk of reinforcing what might well turn out to be another neuromyth, I started wondering if it made sense to teach, and speak, to these different kinds of intelligence.  If so, what would it look like?

If you were particularly strong in short-term or working memory, for example, would it help you to be taught (or spoken to) in ways that served those kind of smarts?  The most recent research suggests that the average person can handle up to  4 chunks of information in short-term memory when focusing in the near term.  That memory decays pretty quickly, but you can retain surprisingly complex bits of information in chunks for brief periods of time.  We’ve all had the experience of chanting a phone number to ourselves, chunked into 3 sets of numbers, while we relay it from one person or repository to another.  It’s hard to recall the 10 digits of a phone number with the obligatory area code, as discrete digits, but possible to do so in three chunks.

It may be that the best way of honoring this sort of memory is to keep our teachings, or takeaways in a presentation, to 3-4 sets of rules, ideas, insights, and so on.  In this context, three is almost always better than four.  Churchill famously said, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat,” in May, 1940, when he first became Prime Minister.  But humanity turned the phrase into “blood, sweat, and tears,” because of the innate satisfaction and feelings of completion in a three-part phrase.  We do have the four seasons, but almost every other great mental model we regularly use comes in threes, from the Christian Trinity to Harry, Ron, and Hermione.

To honor our reasoning intelligence network, we can use various forms of logical argument, from ‘if-then’ statements to inductive and deductive reasoning, to analogy, logic, extrapolation, and so on.  For people who are strong on reasoning, appeals to these various forms of argument might indeed be satisfying, persuasive, and conclusive.

And finally, to play to the verbal network, creating elegant strings of words, plays on words, and rhyming phrases, might help make your message more memorable.  “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” perhaps appealed to verbal intelligence in the famous O.J. Simpson case.  The rhyme carried a force of its own well beyond any logical rigor of the statement.  We’ve all experienced the charm and power of song lyrics that make some old thought newly unforgettable simply by rhyming words that no one else thought to put together before.

Will the three mental intelligence networks replace the three learning styles for teachers, speakers, and public figures everywhere?  Will using a combination of all three intelligences improve the sticking power of your arguments?  We will see.  At least for now, as far as we know, the intelligence model is based on better science.  So it might make sense to design your speeches, or your lesson plans, around the three kinds of actual mental activity, rather than the three learning styles.