The author has been asked to respond to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell's recent (2015) paper in this journal and they have done a very thorough and scholarly job of dissecting the weaknesses of modality preference theories. They clearly and carefully analyse the nature of the evidence for modality preference and conclude that there is little if any warrant for the use of modality preference, particularly because task appropriateness has a stronger influence. The author wonders, why have they had to write it? Why was--to pick one out of many--the thorough review by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2009) which formed a special issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest not sufficient? What is it about learning styles that is so resistant to critique? In this commentary, the author will share some of the intellectual process background to a previous review (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004a, 2004b; Hall & Moseley, 2005), consider how the work can be said to have impact in terms of academic conversations through published work, and finally, reflect on the many conversations the author has had with teachers in schools, colleges and universities. The author will conclude with her current working hypothesis about the attraction of learner-centred frameworks compared to the ongoing personal challenge of being an interesting and effective teacher. [For the article that the author is responding to, "Modality Preference and Learning Style Theories: Rethinking the Role of Sensory Modality in Learning," see EJ1186493.]