There have been many attempts at debunking the corrupted cone of learning, linked below are but a few examples. While each of the authors has done a nice job in their own way, my personal favorite is the image below, which summarizes things quite succinctly. ![]() Retrieved 7/5/2014 from: http://temporal.pr0.pl/devblog/download/posts/bzdury/bullshit-cone-of-learning.png What is also fascinating are the statements by folks who realize that the percentage cone can't be authentic, but use it anyway. Some examples: "That being said, I’m sticking to my plan even if I may have been wrongly influenced by these percentages." "So why is it – even though I now know that the percentages are a work of fiction that I really want it to be true – that I still believe it?" "I will continue to use it [the percentage cone] until you can prove it is not true." (as opposed to I will use it only if I know it to be true) |
4-Debunking Attempts
Subpages (20):
1978 - Dwyer
2002, 2006 - Thalheimer
2002 - Betrus and Januszewski
2003 - Molenda
2004 - Subramony
2008 - Fadel
2008 - Holbert and Karady
2008 - Mea Culpa
2009 - Mariis Mills
2010 - Brain Friendly Trainer
2010 - Genovese
2012 - Ray Pastore, Jr.
2013 - Atherton
2013 - Joanne Jacobs
2013 - Willingham
2014 - Small and Archer
2014 - Subramony, Molenda, Betrus, Thalheimer
2015 - Thalheimer
2016 - Jackson
2018 - Letrud & Hernes
Comments