We are going to look at a number of approaches to describing the differences between learners including “Multiple Intelligence” theory and “Neurolinguistic programming” - fwo ways of looking at learning which have provoked considerable interest among teachers and materials designers. Some students are better at learning languages than others. At least that is the generally held view, and in the 1950s and 1960s it crystallised around the belief that it was possible to predict a student's future progress on the basis of linguistic aptitude tests. But it soon became clear that such tests were flawed in a number of ways. They did not appear to measure anything other than general intellectual ability even though they ostensibly looked for linguistic talents. Further, they favoured analytic-type learners over their more “holistic” counterparts, so that the tests were especially suited to people who have little trouble doing grammar-focused tasks. Those with a more “general” view of things - whose analytical abilities are not so highly developed, and who receive and use language in a more message-oriented way – appeared to be at a disadvantage. In fact, a nalytic aptitude is probably not the critical factor in success. Peter Skehan, for example, believes that what distinguishes exceptional students from the rest is that they have unusual memories, particularly for the retention of things that they hear.