Why are learning myths so persistent—and what makes learning really effective? Kolja Wohlleben explains the appeal of popular learning misconceptions and shows what really matters when it comes to learning and teaching.
The fact that this text has been written is a miracle.
As we know, the human attention span is 8 seconds. In other words, just enough to write half a sentence before we need to do pivot to doing something else. Every text that gets written, every book that gets read and every plate of pasta that gets cooked are superhuman achievements.
Every 8 seconds, we face a new challenge to our willpower. Even TikTok-Videos—usually around 30 seconds long—are Herculean tasks for our brains.
Of course, the claim that we have 8-second attention span is complete nonsense.
But even if it’s so obviously nonsense that less than 8 seconds of critical thinking are enough to debunk it, it appears everywhere: in Time Magazine, Focus, and even in The New York Times.
Every field of research has its own collection of false claims:
- We only use 10% of our brains? False.
- It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at something? False.
- Glutamate is dangerous? False and racist.
Second only to nutrition science, learning psychology is probably the field where unfounded myths survive most stubbornly.
The Four Types of Learning Myths
Learning myths like the 8-second attention span spread so successfully because the factors making them attractive are the same factors making them wrong: They sound surprising, speak to our ego, and let the world seem simpler than it is. There are four types of learning myths that are particularly successful.
The “Shocking Fact Myth”
The 8-second attention span is a myth of the “Shocking Fact” variety. These claims are as successful as they are because they give us an opportunity to open presentations with a surprising “Did you know…”, followed by a claim that will usually remain uncontested. If, like the 8-second attention span, the claim points to something negative, it doubles as a moment for audiences to nod gravely and mourn the decline of our world/youth/society.
The “Round Number + Graph Myth”
Another category is the “Round Number With a Graph Myth”. This one breaks down the world into simple numbers (preferably multiples of ten). By far the most well known of these is the learning pyramid: We remember 10% of what we read, 50% of what we discuss, but 90% of what we apply or explain.
Its true core is that we tend to remember things better if we actively engage with the material. Unfortunately, it is also too obvious, so we add graphs and numbers to imply scientific precision where there is none.
Does an average person reading a textbook on particle physics really retain 10% of its content, even though they understand zero? Does the average reader of this article only retain 10% even though they presumably understand everything?
If we remember 90% of what we apply, why do most people still need YouTube the twentieth time they tie a necktie? Should we scrap lectures and textbooks from medical curriculums, and instead let students explain open heart surgery to others right away? And how does all this connect to the 8 seconds we have to do all of this?
How much we remember depends on our prior knowledge, our working memory, how information is presented, the learning environment and dozens of other factors.
The “Precise Statistic Myth”
The “Round Number With a Graph Myth” survives because it promises simplicity in a complex world.
A variation of this type is the “Precise Number Myth”. While the learning pyramid breaks down the world into a nice graph with round numbers, this type uses ultra-specific numbers to seem scientific. For example, presentation trainings often remind us that “93% of communication is nonverbal”, implying that tone, body language, and facial expressions convey much more information than the words we speak.
The fact that words only comprise 7% of the information we convey opens entirely new perspectives. Overseas travel becomes significantly easier if we understand more than 90% of what the cab driver is telling us. The market for DeepL, Google Translate, and the Cambridge Dictionary is much smaller than initially assumed.
The statement, “The deadline is tomorrow” carries 13-times as much information when said in person than written in an email. And how does all of this square with the percentages of the learning pyramid?
Of course, that 93% figure is nonsense, too.
But as opposed to the learning pyramid, which never made much sense to begin with, we’re dealing with a distortion of relatively legitimate research. The original study looked at a specific situation: What do people do when spoken words and emotional cues conflict? In those cases, people tended to trust nonverbal cues more than the words themselves.
The “Horoscope Myth”
The most common Learning Myth is probably the “Horoscope Myth.” It appeals to our desire to be seen as individuals and leverages our tendency to relate vague, general statements to ourselves (Barnum Effect).
The most popular Horoscope Myth is the biggest learning myth of all: The “learning type” theory, according to which people are either auditory, visual, or kinesthetic learners who learn best when material is presented in a way that matches their type, i.e., via hearing, sight or movement.
So to remember an electric circuit, some of us will be more successful if someone else describes it to them, others need to dance the circuit, and only a third will learn it best by actually looking at the plan. Auditory learners best learn swimming through podcasts, while visual learners that want to learn how to pronounce the English “th” should consult a diagram of correct tongue placements.
The claims made by Horoscope Myths (and by horoscopes, for that matter) feel obviously correct because they match our intuition: “I like listening to podcasts, so I must be an auditory learner.” Unfortunately, preferences and learning outcomes aren’t the same. “Auditory” learners aren't really better at remembering audio content than “visual” or “kinesthetic” learners—who, in turn, aren’t better at memorizing information in “their” style
How we best present information, how long our attention span is, or how much of a text we can remember, are all “How long is a piece of string?” questions. The answer is always the same: It depends.
What Actually Makes Learning Work
Fortunately, we do know a lot about what makes learning and teaching effective:
- Active retrieval and explaining of knowledge is more effective than just reading and highlighting (the kernel of truth in the learning pyramid!).
- Regular practice spaced out over time beats last-minute cramming.
- Mixing up topics helps more than studying one subject at a time.
- Frequent, specific feedback is better than just letting students “figure it out.”
These principles don’t surprise, fit in a tidy infographic, or divide us into neat personality types—but unlike learning myths, they’re true.
