I think most people on here referencing learning according to their best learning style aren't meaning the “learning styles”, but each individual's way of learning. Some people learn well by scrutinizing every detail; others learn well by seeing the big picture; etc. That's more what I mean when I reference “learning style”.
As for the official “learning styles”, I've always thought that everyone has some of all of them, though some people might prefer one or the other. I see them kind of like the whole “love languages” thing – I don't think that some people only feel loved when you spend money on them or when you spend time with them etc., but people feel loved when they receive what they're most missing at that time. So, the learning that's the most “ohhhh I get it now” is what you're most lacking in understanding the concept. For me, I learn best from reading books, cause I was homeschooled aka have learned from books since I learned to read and haven't had a teacher except for about 2 years total (1.5 years of face-to-face college and a couple courses during highschool, less than 1/2 year of college total), not because books have a magical interaction with my mind. lol. But when I take those “learning style” quizzes, I get like 44% for one, 42% for another, 35% for the next, and 30% for the last. So…always very mixed. 😐
Also, I think that people's preference for a “learning style” is more pronounced at younger ages and as people mature they need to utilize more methods to get full learning. So, someone who used to be able to learn by reading only (like me), as they get a bit older will need to add in more learning methods (which I'm starting to need to do).
EDIT: I don't find “Wired” to be a credible source, nor did it really cite anything to back itself up, so I scanned it but didn't look further. I did, though, read through most of the journal article portion about this. (And didn't listen to the TED Talk, yet, cause I'm listening to a different presentation on YouTube.) It seems to say that the categories aren't specific/exclusive (same as any categorization of people – humans don't fit in boxes well) and that there's no need to teach to these classifications, but that's not the same as saying that these learning styles don't exist or that there's no benefit to being aware of them. People learn by seeing, by doing, by hearing, etc. People need to realize that they don't learn by one only, so shouldn't say “Oh, I only learn by doing, so if I can't go observe inventory, there's no reason for me to read about observing inventory”. But, people can say “I learn well by doing, so working problems is going to be better for me than reading through examples that are already worked out”. At the same time, someone who learns well by reading shouldn't say “I learn by reading, I can just read examples and not work out any problems”, cause people learn by all methods, so they need to work out examples, too.
I think what the Wired article overlooks entirely is that even though learners aren't always the best judge of how they learn best, they can know how they don't learn at all. And what Wired and the journal article both overlook is that while teachers can't cater to each unique combination of learning methods, it can make a huge difference in how well someone learns something to have something explained in a way they understand. YOu can see this with all the threads on here where someone says “Becker/Roger/Wiley/NINJA/etc. says __________. I don't get it. What are they saying?” and someone else says the same thing but says it different and they go “Ohhhh I get it now!” People need to learn in the way they can learn. They might not always know what this is, but they do often know what it *isn't*. For CPA exam studiers, don't buy a now $3000 review course every time you think it doesn't match your best learning, but do look for something else when you know it matches your not-learning. Cause…you do know when you're not learning.
Also…you can find claims of anything on the internet. This journal article looks like someone with a chip on their shoulder. A lot of what they say has a lot of basis to it, but they write like someone with a chip on their shoulder. 😐
.