BTW: the whole VARK thing was essentially pulled from the arse of a New Zealand educator born in the 1930’s. He used it to explain why some students were mysteriously lagging behind in New Zealand schools.
New Zealand is a white settler colony with a large and disproportionately impoverished Indigenous population. Can you think of any other reasons why some students might not be well served by New Zealand schools?
I guess any reason at all, regardless of how foolish, is preferable to dealing with poverty and racism.
which learning style did Flemming invent to explain away Maori students?
sounds like vague speculation to me.
As stated:
There’s a lot of this in classic psych. For example, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Entirely based upon Maslow’s imagination, never the slightest scrap of evidence for it, completely debunked and irrelevant in scientific psychology, still widely accepted as gospel truth by marketing and other applied psych types.
Maybe we should learn like them instead.
Incidentally, there is currently a vigorous controversy within NZ academia as to whether or not traditional Maori knowledge should be included within the science curriculum.
I see '“not science” as “not white”.
To momentarily Devil’s Advocate: a lot of the prominent voices against inclusion (e.g. Corballis) are veterans of decades of battles against creationists and alt-med woo merchants who were trying to slip their bullshit into the curriculum.
But, yeah, there’s a fuckton of unexamined white supremacy and colonialism at play as well.
Can you give any pointers on that? Everything back in the day was just like “of course this is how it is” and it did seem to make sense, so of course we all went along with it.
I’d be really interested in something that debunks it and gives a new way to look at things.
These days, you can find lots of applied research (marketing, nursing, sports psych, etc) that is based on an assumption that Maslow was right, but not a lot of recent stuff from actual research psychologists because it’s a dead hypothesis (“theory” implies evidence) and has been so for ages.
But, for example, from 1976:
Wellll…if it’s not handled safely, I guess it is.
Yet, folks will inhale helium so their voices will sound funny.
There are much more deadly unsafe fuels and oxidizers…
I used to read “Things I Won’t Work With” regularly. It’s been a while. Thanks for the reminder.
The hydrogen video is serious and I do recommend people watch it. The title is just intentionally hyperbolic.
As opposed to alternatives, some of which are hypergolic. 
I remember seeing a short promotional film for H2 to run cars and buses. They showed that if you shoot a bullet at a tank of highly pressurized H2 it explodes. However, if the tank is also filled with palladium sponge, the H2 is absorbed into the metal, and the hole in the tank from a bullet just becomes a little colorless flame – much safer.
A can of gasoline will explode if you shoot it too. But there’s no analogy to the palladium idea.
Of course palladium costs more than gold, silver, and platinum.
The makers of explosion-proof warplane fuel tanks beg you to shut your whore mouth. They only catch fire!
