Visual, auditory, kinesthetic: Let's not assume VAK is true

Ever since I learned of the Mehrabian myth (saying that communication is 55% body language, 38% tonal, and 7% words), I have looked for and evaluated the source of each piece of information generally accepted as true about how people communicate. In my searching, I sought credible underpinnings to what is being taught as preferred representational systems: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. I was not able to find that credibility.

I would not be as cynical as Roy H. Williams was in the quote below taken from his Magical Worlds of the Wizard of Ads: Tools and Techniques for Profitable Persuasion. I will say that I no longer include VAK in any training or presentation I give. (Some of the research done on the validity and reliability of VAK is cited at this linked-to Wikipedia entry.)

Williams says . . .

Sooner or later, a person standing at a whiteboard is going to tell you there are three kinds of people" "visual, auditory, and kinesthetic."
. . .

Although this tidy little theory is taught from coast to coast, you will not find a molecule of scientific evidence to support it. In fact, the whole concept is utterly incongruent with all that is currrently known about the architecture and functions of the human brain.

. . .

The visual-auditory-kinesthetic theory sprang into existence because lazy people demanded quick and simple bullets, nuggets, rules, steps, and systems rather than investing the time and energy required to gain real understanding.

How often does that happen the people take the easy route in creating a system or model rather than "investing the time and energy required to gain real understanding?"

We still hear people using VAK in training programs of all types: business development, communication, facilitation, counseling, coaching, persuasion, mediation, and much more. Have you heard it recently? I am wondering if the people presenting have done their own independent research to make sure they believe themselves to be on solid ground or if they are simply repeating what they have heard.

I have written about this topic on a listserv or two and always get responses that VAK is valid. But the only evidence included with the assertion is anecdotal. Obviously the choice to use preferred representational systems is individual. As I said, I do not choose to use VAK. In the past, I assumed it was true because I did not dig for myself. I wanted to alert you in case you are making the same assumption. Let me know what you find in your digging.

Comments

[Linda Ferguson]

Of course VAK is not true - but I would not necessarily leap to the conclusion that it has not been useful. Perhaps it was a necessary step in connecting people to the deeper truth that what we think (rationally) is not independent of what we experience through our senses.

It's useful to remember that the science that now makes it obvious that emotions, senses and reason are connected (not separate!) was not available when "myths" like VAK began to circulate. I wonder how many people were impressed by VAK and therefore opened at least one of their sensory systems a litte wider.

[mel]

I have dyslexia, vac offers me a way into something, I may have just avoied. to put it down is to put anymeans of simple organisation down. index's,titles ? lazy people will remain lazy, vac at least becomes an invite to people to access information for themselves.