L&D's fake news

L&D has its own version of fake news: fads, made-up theories (and how to implement) in conflict with what research or science says, and people selling ideas using devious means. I just had the latter happen. Just had an email sent to me that said the following (copied directly from the email):

Hi Patti

Just wanted to let you know we featured you in our recent post: 
Why Employers Should Consider Multiple Learning Styles in Their Training Processes
https://www.bobtheba.com/blog/20171128/why-employers-should-consider-multiple-learning-styles-in-their-training-processes.

Someone used me to push learning styles for training? Noooooooooo.  As you likely know, the research is clear that learning styles aren't "a thing." (See Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence by Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork to learn more.) Like so many ideas in training, it's based on people trying to make money off of the less knowledgeable or made-up insights that have nothing to do with what the research says. In fact, research shows that quite often, what is best for people for learning is the opposite of what they prefer. And this makes sense as isn't what's best for you nutritionally the opposite of what you love to snack on?

I get why they used my name. People are likely to tweet or tell others about articles that include their name. See, I just did! I hope I don't see my name associated with an article about neuroscience and learning.

No, we AREN'T learning a lot from neuroscience that we can use in learning. It's cognitive science, not neuroscience that most of these people are talking about. But calling it Neuroscience or Brain Science gives it the woo-woo factor. Except it's a lie. John Medina, the author of Brain Rules tells us we simply don't know much yet from neuroscience we can use. The research that might help us understand how neurons impact learning (fMRI studies) have been recently have been called into question for having software that creates errors.

What sciences can we count on to tell us what works? Here's a short list to start (there are many others).
Attention science
Cognitive science
Reading comprehension
Education psychology
Behavioral psychology
Information design
Usability

I'm annoyed that L&D practitioners buy the crap that others (including our own practitioners) put out there to part you from your money and gain recognition for their efforts. You must learn to tell truth from lies in order to do what's needed for good training results. But that's a good thing. Thinking for yourself is always a good thing.

I asked the company that sent that email to take me out of the article. Will let you know if that happens.