Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: professorgb on September 09, 2013, 11:01:11 am
-
Sharon Tenenbaum's "Understanding the left and right brain" should be revised or, at least, retitled. The neurological community does not, and never has, subscribed to the view that left and right hemispheres are associated with creativity and rational thought. While it is true that a great degree of hemispheric specialization can be found, it is a fallacy to map bilateral motor control onto visual perception and creativity. Motor control and cognitive/interpretive functions, while tied together to a degree, are largely separate. Furthermore, the hemispheres of the brain are not totally separate; the corpus collosum connects them.
The fact is that the brain doesn't simply tend to specialize hemispherically; rather, the brain tends to centralize cognitive/neurological functions to different lobes and areas of the brain. There is certainly some hemispheric specialization, but not to the degree that popular imagination would have it. Research into specific disorders like aphasia (difficulties with language production and comprehension) and memory problems demonstrate functional centralization, rather than lateralization.
While I am all for discussions that enhance creativity and photographic insight, I strongly believe that these discussions should not perpetuate scientific and social myths. If we couch these discussions in terms of "food for thought," rather than as scientific fact, I would have no problems. If we use hemispheric specialization as a metaphor, a way to get photographers thinking differently, that's all to the good. I think that the example of mirror imaging the bridge left and right works in this way. It gets the photographer thinking about how most people would interpret an image and then gives him/her a starting point for creatively violating typical photographic perception.
A fun article regarding the left brain/right brain fallacy is http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201206/why-the-left-brain-right-brain-myth-will-probably-never-die (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201206/why-the-left-brain-right-brain-myth-will-probably-never-die). While not comprehensive, it is a good introduction to this issue.
-
Absolutely. It makes me cringe when I hear "railway station book stand self help guide" myths disseminated as if they were fact. As you say, make use of these ideas as metaphor but don't (re)peddle over-simplified cultural myths as science. The most likely explanation for left-right eyescan preferences is habit based on the reading direction of the language you use every day.
-
Why am I not surprised at this response?
Lighten up folks. This isn't a scientific journal. There is enough "folk" theorizing on this topic to at least make it something fun to read even if there is some scientific doubt as to its absolute validity.
Geeze! The Net has become such a difficult place to say anything, not matter how innocent, without self-proclaimed "authorities" jumping in to set the record straight.
Some days makes me want to just throw in the towel. >:(
M
Ps: The amount of pure bullshit and misinformation that appears here on this site's forum (and every other one as well) is astonishing. If I bothered to comment on or correct even just the most glaring examples it would be a full-time job. Instead, I just get on with my life, which I suggest others try to so as well.
-
Good one, Michael!!!!!
Peter
-
There is enough "folk" theorizing on this topic to at least make it something fun to read even if there is some scientific doubt as to its absolute validity.
The article is there as "fun to read" and professorgb's comments are informative rather than mean-spirited -- so where's the problem?
-
In defense of the article can I offer the following.
I'll always remember a TED talk by a female neuroscientist who recounted her own experiences of her own stroke whilst it was happening.
The stroke occurred in the left side of her brain, but it wasn't a sudden and final on/off affair. It was a gradual waxing and waning of her left brain faculties. She experienced a very vivid emotional comparison between the sensation of the two hemispheres in function, then just the right hemisphere in function as the left was gradually cut off in a waxing and waning manner.
What she reported was absolutely fascinating. As the left brain faculties diminished, she experienced a sense of euphoria, peace and tranquility. Then as the left brain temporarily resurged, the experience of peace and tranquility was destroyed.
The message I got from that TED talk, rightly or wrongly, was that our worries and fears and concerns in this world are mainly a product of left-brain activity.
I'm guessing that when Buddhist monks or Hindu sages reach their goal of Nirvana, it's a result of acheiving complete control over that left hemisphere.
-
I'm afraid that I'm with the scientists here too, as I'm a psycholinguist by training and the question of hemispheric specialisation and language has been much discussed in language pathology and first and second language acquisition. Too much cod science for me on a photography site, I'm afraid. There is, however, something that needs explaining in the preferential bias for the first photo. An eye-tracking study might prove interesting.
A dentist friend of mine once presented a paper at a conference where he and his colleagues showed that while western dentists scanned dental x-rays from left to right, Japanese dentists did so from top to bottom, right to left, reflecting the classic directions of western and Japanese writing systems, respectively.
-
The Bible (or Torah or Koran or whatever book you might consider sacred) is pretty useless as factual history but extremely valuable as a collection of useful metaphors.
The left-brain-right-brain idea is also a very useful metaphor for creativity, but I couldn't care less about whether it is anatomically correct.
-
Thank you for your comment Michael... I've been visiting this site almost daily for several years... More and more I am finding less and less I can use, and that is interesting, that actually applies to photography. I could care less whether the latest whistleblower is a hero or not or any of the other myriad discussions that have nothing to do with photography.
End of my one and only rant.
-
OP...dodn't know?
But I will say street photogs have a different mindset than landscape LF guys.
-
I could care less whether the latest whistleblower is a hero or not or any of the other myriad discussions that have nothing to do with photography.
I've only seen that discussion in "The Coffee Corner" and I choose to ignore that discussion -- presumably you also choose to ignore that discussion, so where's the problem?
-
I'm glad to see discussion on this issue, but I had hoped readers would see my point for what it was: With all the amazing wealth of information out in the wide world to inform us about the production of high-quality, high-impact photography, why should we push false information in the name of "conversation"?
My point is not to irritate people. My point is that the world is filled with enough scientific illiteracy that we don't need to spend our time spreading it any further.
Michael, I'm surprised at the vehemence of your response. The fact is that you present tons of scientific/perceptual information on this site all the time. Every time you discuss such issues as image sharpness in print vs. onscreen, you are implicitly discussing perceptual psychology. Further, much of the information debated by members of this forum centers on technical issues and misinformation regarding those technical issues. Given all this, I felt it was important to note the fallacy. That was all.
-
+1
-
... Michael, I'm surprised at the vehemence of your response...
Well, Professor, don't be.
Since you are a man of science apparently, you are familiar with Newton's law of action-reaction? Your own tone set the stage for the reaction.
You said that this site "perpetuates scientific and social myths...pushes false information" etc. You then expected a different reaction?
You linked to an article titled "Why the Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth Will Probably Never Die." You see the irony? So let me ask you this: is this site's role to set the scientific record straight and finally dispels "myths that never die"? When/if you (i.e., the scientific community) on the other hand manage to do that, so that it becomes a common knowledge, then please come back and lecture us, the few remaining backwards, into submission.
It's a metaphor, for god's sake! For the purpose of photographic discussions on this site at least.
-
It's a metaphor, for god's sake! For the purpose of photographic discussions on this site at least.
And the earth is flat. My spirit level has just proved it.
-
Your tone is the exact reason I usually don't participate in discussion forums. I never presented myself in the superior manner you apparently see in my posts. This will be my final post on LL, sadly. I had thought it was different here, with professionalism in place of snarkiness.
Just for the sake of closure, though, let me try one other tact. This site is a business. It is in the business of selling information and inspiration, and the model to date seems to be successful.
The continued success of any business is largely dependent on (among other things) scarcity of the product being offered and, lacking scarcity, branding. Given the uncountable number of photographic "information" web sites available on the Net, let's assume for the moment that LL is successful due to its branding. That brand is the provision of competent, accessible, *accurate* information to its customers. Further, the apparent clientele here is typically knowledgeable, often well-known photographers--this really enhances the LL reputation (I recommend all my clients use this site, and have purchased videos here myself).
So, why would Michael want to screw around with his branding? Why would he want to present information that is demonstrably false (because, like it or not, left brain/right brain has been proven false, popular opinion and incidental titling of magazine articles aside)? The site's branding rests on the reputation of its owner as an excellent, informed photographer and writer. Why would he knowingly include false information? When I read that article, I didn't see any place where it was presented as a metaphor; it was presented as *fact*. By posting that article, Michael implicitly stands behind its content and its veracity. Period. The consequence is potential damage to his brand.
Am I making a tempest in a teacup? Yes and no. Yes in that this is a single article in over 7 years of my using the site that has had this problem. Yes in that the factual errors aren't exactly egregious. NO, however, in that Michael doesn't want this problem to become a trend. As I said, he lives and dies by his branding. If the trustworthiness of the information presented on LL--not the user forum, but a main entry page--declines, so does his brand.
That's enough of that.
Well, Professor, don't be.
Since you are a man of science apparently, you are familiar with Newton's law of action-reaction? Your own tone set the stage for the reaction.
You said that this site "perpetuates scientific and social myths...pushes false information" etc. You then expected a different reaction?
You linked to an article titled "Why the Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth Will Probably Never Die." You see the irony? So let me ask you this: is this site's role to set the scientific record straight and finally dispels "myths that never die"? When/if you (i.e., the scientific community) on the other hand manage to do that, so that it becomes a common knowledge, then please come back and lecture us, the few remaining backwards, into submission.
It's a metaphor, for god's sake! For the purpose of photographic discussions on this site at least.
-
Professorgb, I think you need to take an aspirin and lie down for a few minutes. As noted by my+1 a few comments up, I, and I believe several others, think you are absolutely correct. But, the fact is, Michael sometimes gets up on the wrong side of the bed, as does everyone, from time to time, and even when he's cranky, he's almost always somewhat correct. But, sometimes not, and this is one of those times in which he was inappropriately defensive. Get over it. In the meantime, I, for one, appreciate your contribution, and hope they will continue.
-
...Michael doesn't want this problem to become a trend...
Oh, no, who would want that!?
To help Michael out of this conundrum, I suggest, effective immediately, that he forms a panel for peer-review of future articles for accuracy.
The panel must be comprised of: neurologist, chemist, biologist, physicist, physician, psychologist, psychiatrist (these would come especially handy here), mathematician, engineer, geologist, etc. Because you never know on who's toes you might step in the course of publishing an article. Given many scientific controversies, however, it would be prudent to include at least two or more representatives for each profession, carefully selected to reflect current schools of thought.
-
Thanks. Actually, it wasn't Michael that bothered me--he reacted strongly, but no big deal--but others. Nonetheless, I'll lie low for a while if not longer . . .
Professorgb, I think you need to take an aspirin and lie down for a few minutes. As noted by my+1 a few comments up, I, and I believe several others, think you are absolutely correct. But, the fact is, Michael sometimes gets up on the wrong side of the bed, as does everyone, from time to time, and even when he's cranky, he's almost always somewhat correct. But, sometimes not, and this is one of those times in which he was inappropriately defensive. Get over it. In the meantime, I, for one, appreciate your contribution, and hope they will continue.
-
Your tone is the exact reason I usually don't participate in discussion forums. ... I had thought it was different here, with professionalism in place of snarkiness.
Some, of those who post here, troll for likely victims; others don't.
-
Professorgb, I think you need to take an aspirin and lie down for a few minutes.
+1
... As noted by my+1 a few comments up, I, and I believe several others, think you are absolutely correct...
-1
...But, the fact is, Michael sometimes gets up on the wrong side of the bed, as does everyone, from time to time, and even when he's cranky, he's almost always somewhat correct...
+1
... But, sometimes not, and this is one of those times in which he was inappropriately defensive...
-1
-
If I over-reacted, I regret it.
Yes, I did get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. The reason was I was pissed at an online vendor who took $139 of my money for a tutorial on DaVinci Resolve over the weekend and then didn't send me the download for over 48 hours. I asked for a refund and was refused.
Screw-em. I told him to keep his tutorial and my money. Life is too short.
Then I read the stuff at the top of this thread. So, if it's a fight you want, then.....
Once again, apologies. Just pissed with an online publisher who ripped me off.
BTW, our policy here at LuLa is money back, no questions asked if a customer is dissatisfied for any reason with any of our products. Wish others did the same.
Michael
-
If I over-reacted, I regret it.
Yes, I did get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. The reason was I was pissed at an online vendor who took $139 of my money for a tutorial on DaVinci Resolve over the weekend and then didn't send me the download for over 48 hours. I asked for a refund and was refused.
Screw-em. I told him to keep his tutorial and my money. Life is too short.
Then I read the stuff at the top of this thread. So, if it's a fight you want, then.....
Once again, apologies. Just pissed with an online publisher who ripped me off.
BTW, our policy here at LuLa is money back, no questions asked if a customer is dissatisfied for any reason with any of our products. Wish others did the same.
Michael
TMI....... ;)
-
I'm afraid that I'm with the scientists here too, as I'm a psycholinguist by training and the question of hemispheric specialisation and language has been much discussed in language pathology and first and second language acquisition. Too much cod science for me on a photography site, I'm afraid. There is, however, something that needs explaining in the preferential bias for the first photo. An eye-tracking study might prove interesting.
A dentist friend of mine once presented a paper at a conference where he and his colleagues showed that while western dentists scanned dental x-rays from left to right, Japanese dentists did so from top to bottom, right to left, reflecting the classic directions of western and Japanese writing systems, respectively.
Yup, I think also testing the images with people who read right to left could be illuminating.
Was the article written by Ken Rockwell? :o
[ducks for cover! ;)]
Glad to see you were man enough to apologise for an intemperate post Michael, I did think it was a bit out of character.
-
Michael,
I've been with you for more than ten years. And have learned much (galactic understatement). Even learned a fair bit about photography. Mostly what I've learned is what an utterly decent human being you are. Your style of being you has shown me that life is not boot camp. That being a drill Sergeant is only useful for teaching very young men how to get up in the morning and report to work on time with shined shoes. Otherwise, no need for drill Sergeants in most of real life.
Yes, your first post was an overreaction. And, as is your way, you did the right thing. Acknowledged that some external matter had you in an altered state and your follow up post fixed it. Done.
The professor made some interesting points worth reading. And was kind enough to point us to references. We all win when people like that contribute to this forum. That's why I'm here.
Carry on.
-
Having read the article in question and having more than a passing knowledge of neuroanatomy and neuroscience due to my background as a physician I do not believe that there is any reason to take at face value, especially to the nth degree, the information presented in the article.
I see this article as something on a food-for-thought sort of level not as a scientific dissertation based on cutting edge neuroscience.
I agree that the information presented is debatable.
On another point I see no merit in criticizing Michael Reichman for the wholly understandable "sin" of not having a consummate grasp of current neuroscience. Specialist knowledge is just that - limited to specialists in the field. (BTW this in no way stops non-specialists from learning and gaining knowledge in any field.) Michael's specialist knowledge is in other spheres.
Also, I see no issue with presenting concepts that might well need to be challenged. In fact this site is no stranger to this. Michael allows a broad range of opinion - some of it borders on the absurd (especially in the forums) but a careful reading of the subsequent debate in the forums soon illuminates whether the concept has merit or not.
The Luminous Landscape brand succes is partly due to the fact that broad views and debate are acceptable.
As with all information presented on the internet a buyer-beware approach is wise.
NOnetheless, nearly all the information presented by Michael himself that I have had the opportunity to verify checks out.
This might be highly technical detail pertaining to some photographic equipment or alternatively a, professed, subjective view of how well he thinks a camera or lens actually performs.
So, in fact, I would like to confirm that Michael is an insightful and careful reviewer and writer.
He is also very quick to acknowledge verifiable mistakes.
I do not think that professorgb should be "shy" going forward - believe me this site is big enough to accomodate you.
Michael is full of common-sense and you do not appear to be a flake so please do not hide on the basis of one exchange.
Tony Jay
-
Excellent summary, Tony!
-
It's awfully hard not to let life's crap spill over and one cranky post makes no difference in anybody's life. However, a good dark stout goes a long way toward attitude reform.
Skoal!
If I over-reacted, I regret it.
Yes, I did get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. The reason was I was pissed at an online vendor who took $139 of my money for a tutorial on DaVinci Resolve over the weekend and then didn't send me the download for over 48 hours. I asked for a refund and was refused.
Screw-em. I told him to keep his tutorial and my money. Life is too short.
Then I read the stuff at the top of this thread. So, if it's a fight you want, then.....
Once again, apologies. Just pissed with an online publisher who ripped me off.
BTW, our policy here at LuLa is money back, no questions asked if a customer is dissatisfied for any reason with any of our products. Wish others did the same.
Michael
-
Michael: I enjoyed the article for its sheer simplicity. I just shared it minutes ago to my personal Facebook account using Google Translate to spanish. (linked).
professorgb: I would hate to see you leave. I'm sure many others too.
Eduardo
-
Yup, I think also testing the images with people who read right to left could be illuminating.
Well, using a sample size of 1 (my wife, who is Japanese), I found that 100% of those questioned preferred the first photo. However, my sample has lived in the West for most of her life ....
-
I read the article and thought to myself "yes, I remember reading about left/right brain parts before", and then got to the end of the article thinking "is that it? Where does the insight come?".
It was nice to learn that the left/right is actually a myth, but apart from that, the article left me a bit underwhelmed. The photograph of the bridge was outstanding though, and I loved it. Very strong picture.
-
Results in the psychology of music perception give us many examples of how empirical research helps advance our understanding of how we engage aesthetically with artworks.
Due to the nature of aesthetic perception, this specific understanding will always be a field of multidisciplinary studies. Focussing on a single discpline does not suffice the complexity. Collaboration of the various scientific and humanistic studies is required to gain more insights into the open questions.
I am open to challenging ideas and views, regardless how deep or simplistic they may appear at a glance.
The article made me smile as it triggered a memory of Michael casually making a statement about taking "Neurochromics" when we were driving through Algonquin Park. He referred to shooting without a camera, but taking pictures with his eyes/brain, making "mental notes".
This has stuck with me ever since. ;D
@Michael
http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/davinci-resolve-tutorials (http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/davinci-resolve-tutorials)
-
... The reason was I was pissed at an online vendor who took $139 of my money for a tutorial on DaVinci Resolve over the weekend and then didn't send me the download for over 48 hours. I asked for a refund and was refused.
...
Michael
Resolve is divided into three parts:
- Understanding the workflow opportunities - read my crash course: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/davinci-resolve-crash-course-for-beginners-part-one-setting-up/
- Color correction - you already know this via Lightroom and other RAW processors.
- Power Windows - something tells me you won't enjoy using this feature very much. It's a chore, and it takes skill to use it well.
If there's anything specific you'd like to know, some of the members in the Motion & Video forum are pretty knowledgable.
Finally, the Resolve manual is one of the best written (and I've read them all).
-
I have no problem with basic use of Resolve. It wasn't difficult to get up to speed.
But it's the things you mention, such as Power Windows and tracking that are worth learning in depth and I enjoy well done video tutorials rather than manuals. I thought that Denver Riddle's series would be fun, but alas his customer service leaves something to be desired.
In any event, as powerful as Resolve is, it's a clunky piece of software from another era. Fixed page layout, no floating windows, no use of a second monitor other than for scopes. And if you leave the scopes on the second monitor, you can never get them back to the main screen unless that monitor is reattached. Bad design.
But Adobe has just announced that Premier will support CinemaDNG as of an Oct 15th update, so unless Blackmagic really pulls a rabbit out of it's hat I'm afraid that Resolve likely isn't in my future in any event.
-
Well at the end, a separation between creativity, spontaneity, intuition (call it how you want) and rational thought is always present in our world and also in us as individuals. A "scientific debate" wich would negate that would be of no use, to anyone.
So, nevertheless, an important topic not only for art - no matter how it is rooted biologically.
Best regards
-
In any event, as powerful as Resolve is, it's a clunky piece of software from another era. Fixed page layout, no floating windows, no use of a second monitor other than for scopes. And if you leave the scopes on the second monitor, you can never get them back to the main screen unless that monitor is reattached. Bad design.
Michael, I don't have Resolve and so I've not tried it, but if you're working on a Mac, there are quite a few apps which with gather windows for you, some of them automatically on disconnection/reconnection of a second monitor. I use one called Moom, from manytricks.com.
Jeremy