Top 10 training myths for trainers and HR - how to dispel training myths in adult education

Reading time: 8 minutes

Introduction

We have been training trainers for over 20 years. We have been certifying for 15. We've seen hundreds of development programs, thousands of participants and dozens of trends. And one thing we know for sure: training myths for trainers and HR are doing well. They are making a comeback at conferences, workshops, and in presentations to managers. That's why in this article we show you how to dispel training myths in adult education and why it's crucial today for training effectiveness and future competence development.

We also beat our own breasts. We ourselves once wrote about generations and their differences. Today we know that this is a shortcut, a simplification that is easy to sell, but harder to defend. That's why in this article we do something different: we unveil our own "shortcuts" and show how to debunk the myths.

We have selected 10 of the most frequently repeated training myths and 5 new ones that are just now entering circulation. We will illustrate each myth with a study, an expert commentary or an example from practice. We want this text to serve as a tool for trainers, HR professionals and managers - to look critically at the effectiveness of training and to build the competencies of the future: information resilience and critical thinking.

What will you read about in this article on training myths?

• Old myths still live on: "10% of the brain," "7-38-55 communication," "learning styles."
• On top of that, HR is eager to repeat new ones: generations X, Y, Z or the slogan "the most important thing is to know how to learn."
• Myths are catchy because they are simple, emotional and repeated in a group.
• Disarming myths requires facts, mechanisms and critical thinking.
• For trainers and HR, this is more important today than ever - because any participant can verify the content of a slide in seconds in tools such as ChatGPT.

Top 10 training myths for trainers and HR

Myth 1 - "We only use 10% of the brain."

This is the oldest and most stubborn myth in adult education. It has been repeated for years in management and motivational training. It sounds attractive: "you have untapped potential, unlock it!".

The problem is that neuroimaging studies show the opposite. Researchers at MIT and the McGovern Institute prove that the brain is active throughout, even at rest. Barry Beyerstein debunked this myth in Scientific American back in the 1990s.

Why has it survived? Because it's an easy sell. It easily goes to trainers who want to "add neuro-flavor" to their programs. It also goes easily to participants who want to believe they can "unlock the 90%."

What is the truth? The brain works in networks. Different areas are specialized, but all are needed. We develop not by "unlocking percentages," but by practicing attention, memory and learning strategies.

A practical example: at one HR training course we heard the question, "What exercises activate those unused 90%?". This shows how strongly the myth lives in the imagination. Our answer was simple: we use 100% - the question is: how do we manage it?

Myth 2. "Communication is 7% words, 38% intonation and 55% body language."

A must-have slide in communication training. As many trainers - so many variations, but always the same three numbers.

The source? Albert Mehrabian. Only that his research concerned a very specific situation - when words and tone of voice convey conflicting emotions. Example: someone says "yes" in a tone that sounds like "no." Then indeed the tone and body language prevail.

Why catchy? Because it gives a simple answer: "words don't count." This is the perfect slogan for body language training, public speaking or managerial communication workshops.

Why false? In normal communication, the content of words carries most of the meaning. We can't teach managers that "words are only 7%." This undermines the effectiveness of training - because participants begin to downplay language and focus on gestures.

What is the truth? Non-verbal communication is important - it regulates emotions, supports relationships - but it cannot be "valued" in percentages. In adult education and HR training, it's the synergy that counts: content + tone + gesture.

Research: David Lapakko (2007) called this myth an "urban communication legend." He showed how it traveled from training rooms to textbooks and back again.

Practice: In one company, participants returned to managers after training and said: "Words don't count." That was enough to undermine HR's entire communications strategy.

Myth 3: "Left hemisphere = logic, right hemisphere = creativity."

This is a classic of training slides. Trainers draw two hemispheres, on one side numbers and analytics, on the other paint and artist. Participants eagerly buy into it: "I'm right hemispheric, that's why I hate Excel."

Where did this come from? In the 1960s and 1970s, Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga studied patients with a disrupted great-hemispheric spinal cord (aka split-brain). In fact, they noticed lateralization - for example, language more often in the left hemisphere. The media picked up on this and turned it into a narrative about "two types of people."

Why catchy? Because we like simple labels best. They give the illusion of self-recognition and fit into training "get to know you" tools.

Why false? most tasks engage networks in both hemispheres simultaneously. Creativity, logic, emotion engage networks in both hemispheres. There are no "right-hemisphere" or "left-hemisphere" people.

What is true? Lateralization exists, but it involves specific processes (e.g., language, face recognition). In real work, both hemispheres work together.

Research and sources: Nielsen et al. (2013, PLoS ONE) - fMRI analysis of thousands of people, no evidence of "hemispheric dominance." Harvard Health (2013): "The myth of being left- or right-brained".

Practice: At a training course for managers, we once heard, "Let's do a hemispheric test, then we'll divide people into analytical and creative." The problem is that "hemispheric" tests have no basis - and the result is labeling instead of competence development.

Myth 4. "Learning styles: visual, auditory, kinesthetic."

This is one of the most stubborn myths of adult education. It is repeated in schools, in courses, in HR training rooms. Participants like it because it gives a label: "I'm a kinesthetic, therefore I hate presentations".

Where did this come from? From the educational typology theories of the 1970s and 1980s, popularized by Coffield and others. It's still found in textbooks for teachers and trainers today.

Why catchy? Because everyone likes a simple answer. Trainers get a tool for profiling a group, and participants get the feeling that they have been "recognized."

Why false? A systematic review (Pashler (2008) found no evidence that matching learning style to method improves performance. This is neuromyth.

What is true? Learning effectiveness depends more on matching method to content. Geometry is better to see, music is better to hear. Each person uses multiple channels, not just one.

Research and sources: Pashler et al., Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence (2008); Coffield et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy (2004).

Practice: We met a group in which participants demanded a VAK test because "it's being done everywhere." Instead of a test, we did an exercise: the same content delivered in three forms. The result? They remembered best what matched the material, not the supposed style.

Myth 5: "Mirror neurons explain everything."

Fashionable in coaching, leadership and communication training for a dozen years or so. The slogan: "Your mirror neurons make you infect your team with energy."

Where did this come from? In the 1990s, Rizzolatti discovered neurons in macaques that activate when the animal observes an action, as if it were performing it itself. It was a revolution - and was immediately extended to empathy, culture, leadership.

Why catchy? Because it sounds like a magical "neuro-explanation." It gives trainers gravitas: it shows that "it's not me saying this, it's science."

Why false? Mirror neurons exist, but their role is limited - primarily to simple motor mappings. There is no evidence that they explain empathy or leadership. Gregory Hickok (2014) explicitly called this the "mirror neuron myth."

What is true? Empathy and communication are complex processes involving multiple brain networks - the prefrontal cortex, the limbic system, the theory of mind system. "Mirror" is only one component.

Research and sources: Hickok, The Myth of Mirror Neurons (2014); Rizzolatti & Craighero, The mirror-neuron system (2004).

Practice: At a management training, one trainer said: "Your mirror neurons immediately activate the team's mirror neurons." Sounds impressive, but realistically it says nothing about how to build team effectiveness.

Myth 6: "Habits are formed in 21 days."

This phrase is repeated over and over again in wellbeing, coaching and management training courses. Simple, elegant and hopeful: "three weeks and you're a new person."

Where did it come from? The source is Maxwell Maltz, a plastic surgeon, who wrote in his book Psycho-Cybernetics (1960) that patients get used to their new facial appearance in about 21 days. This wasn't about habits, it was about perception of one's body.

Why catchy? Because 21 days is short and specific. Easy to motivate, easy to sell in HR training.

Why false? Research by Phillippa Lally and team (2009) showed that the average time to form a habit is 66 days, with a spread of 18 to 254. It all depends on the complexity of the behavior and the context.

Which is true? Habits are formed through regularity, reinforcement and context. Difficult changes - like diet or sports - often require many months, not the magic three weeks.

Research and sources: Lally et al, How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world (EJSP, 2009); Wendy Wood, Good Habits, Bad Habits (2019).

Practice: At one wellbeing training, managers were promised: "In 21 days you will change the habits in the team." After a month, the effect was not there, so there came disappointment and a decline in confidence in the program.

Myth 7: "10,000 hours of practice makes perfect."

This myth made a worldwide career after Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers (2008). The principle is simple: just practice 10,000 hours and you will become an expert.

Where did it come from? From K. Anders Ericsson's study of violinists in Berlin (1993). The best had an average of 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. But this was an average in one context, not a universal rule.

Why catchy? A concrete number. It sounds objective and gives hope that anyone can become a master - all it takes is "making up the hours."

Why false? The number of hours alone is not enough. Ericsson wrote about deliberate practice - deliberate practice, with feedback, with crossing your comfort zone. Without this, one can spend 10,000 hours on the guitar and still be average.

What is the truth? Expertise develops in the process of years of training, but the time needed varies from one discipline to another. More important than the "magic number" is the quality of practice.

Research and sources: Ericsson, The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance (1993); Ericsson & Pool, Peak (2016).

Practice: At one talent training, a young participant said: "I just need to gain hours." This shows how the myth distracts from the quality of learning.

Myth 8: "Multitasking is effective."

In resumes and presentations it still sounds proud: "I'm great at multitasking." Companies like to think that employees can do three things at once.

Where did this come from? The term "multitasking" was transferred from computers (where a processor handles multiple processes) to people. HR and business eagerly bought it as a synonym for productivity.

Why catchy? Because it fits the "faster, more, better" narrative. It gives the feeling that we are super-productive.

Why false? Cognitive psychology makes it clear: the brain doesn't run two tasks requiring attention at the same time, it switches. Each switch is a cost - a drop in quality, more errors, more fatigue.

What is true? We can combine an automatic activity (walking, cleaning) with a simple cognitive one (listening to a podcast). But for work that requires attention - multitasking is an illusion of efficiency.

Research and sources: Rubinstein, Meyer & Evans, Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching (JEP: Human Perception and Performance, 2001); Nass et al., Cognitive control in media multitaskers (PNAS, 2009).

Practice: In one company, HR praised a manager for "multitasking" - running a meeting and writing emails. In reality, the team felt disrespected and the meeting lost its meaning.

Myth 9. "Generations X, Y, Z have different working and learning styles"

This is now the "holy grail" in HR and at conferences. Reports, presentations, articles - everywhere we read that Millennials want something different from Gen X, and Gen Z learn differently because they have "different brains."

Where did this come from? From HR marketing of the 1990s and 2000s. The first narratives about "generations" created sociological labels. The training industry quickly picked up the theme - because it was easy to build programs for "different generations."

Why catchy? Because it provides a simple map: we assign characteristics and preferences to each age group. This organizes the world and makes it easier to sell a training service.

Why false Meta-analyses (Twenge, 2010; Costanza, 2012) show that differences between generations at work are minimal. Individual and life-stage differences are far greater. There is no evidence that generations learn differently biologically.

What is true? Different cohorts grew up in different conditions - and it is the environmental context that shapes their habits. Generation Z grew up in a digital world, so they assimilate video content faster. But it's the context, not the DNA.

Research and sources: Twenge, Generational differences in work values (Journal of Management, 2010); Costanza et al, Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis (JBP, 2012).
Kirschner & De Bruyckere (2017): "digital native myth" - young people don't biologically have "different brains," they just grew up in different conditions. There are more differences within a generation than between them.

Practice: at one HR conference we heard: "Gen Z can't focus for more than eight seconds." This sentence caused applause - and in fact there is no research to support such a magic attention limit.

Myth 10: "The most important thing is to know how to learn."

This is a buzzword that keeps coming back at educational conferences and in presentations about "competencies of the future." The simplified version is that knowledge becomes obsolete, so the only thing that matters is the ability to learn.

Where did this come from? Alvin Toffler wrote as early as the 1970s that "the illiterates of the 21st century will be those who cannot learn, unlearn and re-learn." Today, this slogan has made a comeback with discussions about AI and VUCA.

Why catchy? Because it gives the impression of "the secret of the future." It easily motivates: "you don't need to know, it's enough that you know how to learn." It sells well in programs for HR and managers.

Why false (in the absolute version)? Knowing learning methods alone is not enough. You can know spaced repetition or mind maps, and you still won't master quantum physics without a solid base knowledge. Repetition depreciates the value of the content and competencies accumulated in an organization.

What is the truth? Metacognition (knowing how you learn) helps - but only when combined with content, practice and experience. Knowledge + learning strategies = real advantage.

Research and sources: Dunlosky et al, Improving Students' Learning with Effective Learning Techniques (PSPI, 2013); Flavell, works on metacognition (1970s); Barbara Oakley, Learning How to Learn (2014). Dunlosky (2013) showed that the effectiveness of different learning techniques varies widely - some work (spaced repetition), some not at all (highlighting, underlining).

Practice: at the conference we heard the slogan: "Now you have to learn to forget quickly so you don't overload your brain." It's a catchy slogan, but neuroscience does not know the process of "actively unlearning." We can update knowledge and overwrite patterns, but not erase memory.

HR training - new wave myths that need to be debunked

Some training myths are decades old, others are just gaining popularity. We see them at HR conferences, in training offers and presentations by trainers. They sound fresh and trendy, but they also carry the risk of simplification.

Myth A. "Unlearning - you have to learn to forget quickly"

We hear this slogan more and more often at company conferences and business meetings. "Unlearning" is beginning to look like the new holy grail - a trendy word that impresses management and HR. It sounds good: the world is changing fast, so you need to learn to "unlearn" and "forget" just as fast.

The problem: neuroscience does not know the process of "active memory erasure." The brain works differently - rather, it overwrites old patterns with new ones and weakens unused pathways. The slogan about unlearning is sometimes dangerous, because it suggests that knowledge and experience are ballast.

True: we need flexibility, updating and critical thinking. But it's still learning - not unlearning. What really counts in HR training and adult education is the ability to reconstruct and update competencies, not erase knowledge.

Myth B. "Generation Z are digital natives"

We often hear: "Z's have different brains because they grew up with smartphones."

The problem: research (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017) shows that this is a myth. Young people are not automatically better at learning with technology. They make the same cognitive mistakes as older generations.

True: they are more proficient with media, but digital competence requires conscious training.

Myth C. "Growth mindset = guaranteed success."

At conferences, it's common: "All you need is a growth mindset, and anything is possible."

Problem: Dweck research shows growth mindset effects, but moderate and context-dependent. The simplified version sells an illusion.

Truth: mindset is supportive, but only in combination with practice, feedback and a support system.

Myth D. "Digital brain - social media is changing our wiring"

Narrative: TikTok has reprogrammed the brains of the young.

The problem: neuroplasticity exists, but the changes are subtle and not like "hardware remodeling." This is a misuse of neurolanguage.

Truth: Attention habits change, but brain structure is not "reinstalled" by apps.

Myth E. "Wellbeing = mindfulness will solve everything"

HR companies often buy quick programs: yoga, meditation, breathing - and think the burnout problem will go away.

The problem: it's a "quick fix." Mindfulness works, but it doesn't remove systemic causes (overload, lack of resources, bad leadership).

Truth: wellbeing needs to be built in the organizational culture, not just on a yoga mat.

Summary of 5 new training myths

These five myths are a wake-up call. They haven't yet taken root as deeply as "10% of the brain" or "7-38-55," but they are quickly gaining popularity. That's why trainers, HR and managers should look at them critically now, before they grow into "self-evident truths."

How to debunk training myths - recommendations for trainers and HR

1. Check sources
   - before inserting a slide into a presentation, make sure there is research behind it, not a repeated industry legend.
2. Show mechanisms, not just facts
   - participants remember and understand better when they can see why something works, not just that "it does."
3. Teach critical thinking
   - instead of imparting ready-made "rules," introduce simple tools for critique: questions about source, replication, effect size.
4. Name myths directly
   - don't be afraid to say in training, "This is a myth you've probably heard before." Boldly naming a phenomenon increases your credibility.
5. Build a culture of information resilience
   - in an organization, it's worth supporting people in recognizing simplifications, clickbait and pseudoscience. This is a competency of the future, as important as digital skills.

How trainers and HR can dispel training myths in practice

• Take a look at your training presentation and cross out the slides with "7-38-55", "10% brain", "VAK styles".
• If you must talk about generations, add context: these are environmental differences, not biological ones.
• Instead of "21 days for a habit" - say: it depends - from 18 to 254 days, 66 on average.
• For participants who ask about multitasking, show a study about the cost of switching attention.
• Include elements of fact-checking in training - show how you check data yourself.

Finally

We have been training trainers for over 20 years. We've been certifying for 15. And we still encounter the same myths - although their packaging changes. That's why in this article we've shown 10 of the most repeated training myths and 5 new ones that are just now entering circulation.

We used to repeat them ourselves, too. Yes, we wrote about generations and their learning styles. Today we beat our chest - because it was easier to take shortcuts than to explain the complexities. But if we want training for HR, managers and trainers to be truly effective, we need to reject these shortcuts.

Therefore, our recommendation is simple:

• let's talk about facts and mechanisms,
• let's teach critical thinking,
• let's disarm myths instead of reproducing them.

Because adult education and competence development of the future cannot be based on industry legends. They need reliability, evidence and the courage to say: this is a myth.

Authored by Barbara Matyaszek-Szarek
Editorial and fact-checking support: ChatGPT - an AI assistant used to verify research, literature and support editing of the text.

FAQ: training myths in adult education

What are training myths?
These are popular, easily-sold buzzwords used in classrooms and conferences ("10% of the brain," "7-38-55," "learning styles") that sound scientific, but have no solid basis in research.

Why are educational myths harmful?
They lower the effectiveness of training and trust in the trainer. In the age of AI (e.g. ChatGPT), a participant checks a slide in a minute-myths undermine the credibility of the entire program.

What training myths are repeated most often?
"10% brain", "7-38-55 communication", "learning styles (VAK)", "21 days to habit", "10,000 hours to mastery", "multitasking is effective", narratives about "X/Y/Z generations".

Where does the attraction of myths come from?
They are simple, emotional, "circular" (21 days, 7-38-55), invoke authorities and are massively repeated-the brain then treats them as truth.

How to recognize that training information is a myth?
Ask three questions: 1) where are the sources? 2) was the result replicated? 3) does it sound "too nice" (magic numbers, universal prescriptions)? If there is no hard data-it is probably a myth.

How to recognize effective training despite the presence of myths?
Does it develop skills on practical tasks? Does it give feedback and transfer to work? Is the myth disarmed and replaced with facts+mechanism? If so- training can be valuable.

Are myths sometimes created on purpose (marketing)?
Yes. Some of the slogans are simplifications "for sale" (e.g. "21 days"), sometimes reinforced by media/books. This works, but is cognitively dishonest.

Can repeating myths motivate?
Short-term yes. Long-term it harms (disappointment = decrease in motivation + loss of confidence). Motivation is better built on truth.

How to properly use a popular myth in training?
Use it as a hook: "You've probably heard this. It's a myth. Let's see what the research says and how it works in practice." Myth → fact → mechanism → application.

How to defend against myths? (trainer/HR)
Check sources, avoid "magic numbers," call the myth straight, show mechanisms instead of slogans, teach critical thinking. This realistically increases the effectiveness of training.

How to respond to resistance from participants who believe in myths?
Without conflict. "I understand that this is often repeated. Let's check the research together and see what works in practice." Data + exercise usually disarms resistance.

Do myths differ between industries?
Yes. HR: generations, learning styles, EQ. Sales/communications: 7-38-55, "body language explains everything." Coaching/development: 10% of the brain, mirror neurons, 21 days.

What fact-checking tools and methods do you recommend?
Google Scholar, ResearchGate, reviews/meta-analyses, fact-checking portals (e.g. Demagog/Snopes), and AI as an adjunct (ChatGPT) - but always verify sources. Rule of 3 steps: source → replication → usability at work.

Is it worth raising the topic of myths with participants at all?
Yes. Participants ask anyway. Openly naming the myth + alternative increases trust in the trainer and the quality of the overall program.

What are the best scientific/industry sources to rely on?
PSPI (e.g. Pashler on learning styles), Annual Review (Psychology/Neuroscience), Ericsson's work on deliberate practice, Twenge/Costanza meta-analyses (generations), Hickok (mirror neurons), Wendy Wood (habits).

Is AI (e.g. ChatGPT) suitable for verifying training myths?
Yes-as a quick "radar" and an aid to getting to the source. Not as the ultimate authority. Always click through to original research and check methodology.