Explore the evidence
4 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
- nothing assessed yet
group / setting
- nothing assessed yet
cost
- nothing assessed yet
outcome class
- nothing assessed yet
Physical capacity is about as heritable as cognitive ability (~60%, no shared environment). Whether trainability is a stable trait remains unproven — the skeptics are winning.
strong supportconf: highgc: low14/1436/48connected:How should a school run its classrDoes working-memory or brain trainCan executive function be trained,Does teaching a growth mindset rai+4
Talent and trainability — what is heritable, and what that does not license · talent · ages 4–18 · input
Most measured 'home environment' effects are parents' genes: three-quarters of parent-child transmission isn't rearing, and a whole better childhood buys ~4 IQ points.
mixedconf: highgc: lowThe early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move · early-childhood · ages 4–10 · input
Brain training improves the trained task and nothing else: far transfer to intelligence or achievement is 0.001 against active controls.
no effectconf: highgc: low18/1824/48connected:FadeoutTalent and trainabilityDoes learning to code improve geneCan executive function be trained,+1
Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement? · transfer · ages 4–18 · debunked
Matching instruction to 'learning styles' does nothing: real matching experiments return d=.04. The correlational literature IS the myth.
debunkedconf: highgc: lowDoes matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.