Great stuff, and also Jane's ref. to Will. It's funny that there is such a gap between current learning theory and models and practitioners, both on the level of currency, and in understanding the roles of theory and models.

You've probably noticed that the theories/models that become rampant and influential are those that are intuitively sensible on their face and end up written about in pop psych. books. e.g. MBTI, learning styles, multiple intelligences.

The sad part is that practitioners are usually years behind the research, and get their information mostly from pop sources rather than from reading and understanding the research, the latter a task that probably would take a full time commitment anyway.

And, the true researchers write for each other, not practitioners.

It's interesting. Multiple Intelligences have been around and debated for probably a century but few trainers knew anything about them prior to recently.

BTW, there is an error in the first sentence of Occam's Donkey (that you quoted). It should read "intelligence test SCORES...linked to school success". The error is common, particularly among non-psychologists -- confusing intelligence scores (which were originally designed to predict school success), and the concept of intelligence. Different.