I agree with your comment on being "focused." In analyzing my own learning preferences, I found it is much easier for me to stay focused if I can speed my way through something. Speed is the key for me, not the format.

For example, if I have the choice to learn the same information via a video or book, I'd opt for the book because I know I can read a lot quicker than the person in the video is going to speak. This helps me to stay focused. On the other hand, if I can speed the video up to 4 or 5 times its normal rate, I would opt for that over the printed page because I can listen faster than I can read. For me, it isn't the format as much as the speed at which I can complete my learning that is important.

I highly doubt you absorb much at 4-5x speed. 3x speed is very fast -- if the speaker talks quickly, it's borderline unintelligible.

I understand where you're coming from. When I first started doing this, 1.5x was the maximum I could go and still retain information. After a while, I was able to retain information at 2x, then 2.5x and so on. It took me a year or two of practice to get to this speed. It also depends on what you're trying to learn, how clearly the speaker is enunciating, and whether the speaker has a heavy accent or not, I guess, but it works for me in most cases.

It depends on practice. I'm at roughly 2x speed for podcasts, and a blind acquaintance I know hits 4-5x, especially for TTS.

My internal voice while reading is around 2-3x as fast as most people speak (this is natural speed, without trying to speed-read). It's also one of the main reasons I stumble over words when speaking - they get jumbled together because I can't actually speak that fast. So I don't find that unbelievable at all.

I've never even really considered the different learning styles; maybe because I'm not an educator (other than TAing, tutoring in grad school, etc .. stuff you kinda figure out as you go based on how people taught you).

I've never even though that people used these styles to try and reach everyone as the article suggests. I thought it was always more of a "What will keep me engaged/focused."

as a complement to that perspective, i think we're all basically experiential learners, and seeing, hearing, and touching/moving are simply parts of the "experience". sure, one person might focus a little more on the voice of the speaker, and another might be watching more intently, but all of those components combine to create the immersive experience that locks new information into our brains. but as you say, teaching should incorporate mutiple modes of stimuli, because all learners need all of the modes.

incidentally, that's why most conferences and such gatherings are not so useful for learning new things--they're designed so that people talk at you, rather than involve you. the purpose is often to display the superior knowledge/ability of the speaker, for various commercial purposes (having been on both sides of this).

Meaning no disrespect my friend, but I disagree. See my post above for my experience trying to learn to read by experiencing reading. It didn't work for me.

A dyslexic will be different than someone with auditory difficulties due to damage to the temporal lobe. These people will benefit from one form of instruction more than the other. To pretend everyone is the same flies in the face of science. Some differences like iq and personality may not have any important pedagogical implications, but if a student is hearing impaired or blind, you can bet visual and auditory instruction will be differential in value.

Another thing I just remembered on this topic of what "focuses" you, there is a clever and interesting way to learn which of the three forms keeps someone else focused.

It is in how a person tells you they don't understand something. A visual person will say "I don't see that." An auditory person will say "I'm not hearing you" or "You need to say that again." A kinesthetic person would say "I don't get it" or "That doesn't feel right."

Interesting. And small hints.