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.
