#ActuallyAutistic web dev. Does front of the front-end. Loves perf and minimalism. Prefers HTML, CSS, Web Standards over JS, UX over DX. Hates div disease.
You got it a bit wrong. The zero in Aural is not "why", but how much you give it value. It is not the input, it is the output. What you said is the explanation, the input, and that is why Aural is 0. When doing the test you reflect each answer you give to the expected result you will get. And that is why this test and personality tests are such a failure.
For example I get 100% introversion in every personality test I take, because I value it so much more than extroversion, and thus each of my answers I give gets reflected into the result. You could even say I'm purposefully aiming for hitting the 100% introversion score.
I'm not 100% introverted. I just value being introverted. Same for you: you are no incapable of learning by aural means. You just don't value it at all.
EDIT! Seeing the post I replied to got deleted I guess my message might've been a bit too blunt by being so direct. My intent was not to cause shame or other negative feeling, so if it did I'm sorry.
I agree with the central thesis here - which is that all these "Tests" are in some sense indicative of our own biases and preferences, and not rooted in any scientific or genetic predisposition to be better at one than the other.
Going forward, I am going to think of these as learning strategies and not personalized styles. Each strategy uses a different combination of our senses to provide input and derive insight. And what we get out of each is likely to be proportional to how much we prefer (prioritize) and practice (upskill) our learning journeys using that option
#ActuallyAutistic web dev. Does front of the front-end. Loves perf and minimalism. Prefers HTML, CSS, Web Standards over JS, UX over DX. Hates div disease.
I guess I'd put this in the same "box" with personality tests. They are a great introductionary tool into knowing how people might be different to you, and maybe get some clues on how to work with different minds. However if you go too much into it and put yourself into a box based on what a test gives as an answer and live by that, then you take the wrong route.
Hey all -- thank you so much for raising awareness of this. As you might tell from my initial post, I wrote a tweet and went from that to post within a short spell of time, so this was definitely a spontaneous posting. I should have done more research and I didn't.
And I can't thank you all enough for sharing your comments and providing me more links to educate myself! Deeply appreciate this discussion and hope you all keep sharing.
In the meantime, I added an update to my post above (see "Read This First") to share these resources and hopefully make this a teachable moment for me and others. I do think that there are different ways that people CAN learn (visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic being ALTERNATIVES or TOOLS that help us) - and where I went wrong was to assume that we each had a default LEARNER style that was individually optimal. The data shows no scientific evidence of this but rather that all of us are multi-modal and capable of using any style necessary.
What makes specific styles successful is likely a combination of context (certain styles better for learning certain things) and practice (my preference for visual makes me use those tools more, which in turn might create learning habits that appear more successful).
My bigger takeaway is this - that learning is about trying things and learning from all our experiences. And learning "in public" has the benefit of being able to leverage community intelligence like this, to course-correct faster. So thank you 😍🙏🏽
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hasn't this been debunked already?
psychologicalscience.org/news/rele...
I'm not saying that you shouldn't explore various learning strategies, but the idea that you fit in some special learning box seems to be untrue.
You got it a bit wrong. The zero in Aural is not "why", but how much you give it value. It is not the input, it is the output. What you said is the explanation, the input, and that is why Aural is 0. When doing the test you reflect each answer you give to the expected result you will get. And that is why this test and personality tests are such a failure.
For example I get 100% introversion in every personality test I take, because I value it so much more than extroversion, and thus each of my answers I give gets reflected into the result. You could even say I'm purposefully aiming for hitting the 100% introversion score.
I'm not 100% introverted. I just value being introverted. Same for you: you are no incapable of learning by aural means. You just don't value it at all.
EDIT! Seeing the post I replied to got deleted I guess my message might've been a bit too blunt by being so direct. My intent was not to cause shame or other negative feeling, so if it did I'm sorry.
I agree with the central thesis here - which is that all these "Tests" are in some sense indicative of our own biases and preferences, and not rooted in any scientific or genetic predisposition to be better at one than the other.
Going forward, I am going to think of these as learning strategies and not personalized styles. Each strategy uses a different combination of our senses to provide input and derive insight. And what we get out of each is likely to be proportional to how much we prefer (prioritize) and practice (upskill) our learning journeys using that option
I guess I'd put this in the same "box" with personality tests. They are a great introductionary tool into knowing how people might be different to you, and maybe get some clues on how to work with different minds. However if you go too much into it and put yourself into a box based on what a test gives as an answer and live by that, then you take the wrong route.
Hey all -- thank you so much for raising awareness of this. As you might tell from my initial post, I wrote a tweet and went from that to post within a short spell of time, so this was definitely a spontaneous posting. I should have done more research and I didn't.
And I can't thank you all enough for sharing your comments and providing me more links to educate myself! Deeply appreciate this discussion and hope you all keep sharing.
In the meantime, I added an update to my post above (see "Read This First") to share these resources and hopefully make this a teachable moment for me and others. I do think that there are different ways that people CAN learn (visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic being ALTERNATIVES or TOOLS that help us) - and where I went wrong was to assume that we each had a default LEARNER style that was individually optimal. The data shows no scientific evidence of this but rather that all of us are multi-modal and capable of using any style necessary.
What makes specific styles successful is likely a combination of context (certain styles better for learning certain things) and practice (my preference for visual makes me use those tools more, which in turn might create learning habits that appear more successful).
My bigger takeaway is this - that learning is about trying things and learning from all our experiences. And learning "in public" has the benefit of being able to leverage community intelligence like this, to course-correct faster. So thank you 😍🙏🏽