This is nonsense. It was nonsense when Dickens wrote about it too. He was criticized for promoting such foolishness at the time. It's all been debunked.
"Subjects who correctly selected the t-shirt worn by their roommates tended to score high on the emotional tests."
Tended? What does that mean? The number of subjects in the study (22 pairs) is given but no numbers that allows the reader to interpret the results for themselves. No link to that data either. How far did the results deviate from chance? They have a written test for empathy?
I find it much easier to doubt this study believe it's claims. I hate lazy science reporting. Focus on the weird stuff no matter how bad the methodology.
Sad, but "art" is now just a measure of who can be the sickest. I'm gonna get me a twofer and paint a portrait of the Madonna on human skin using elephant dung. It will be sublimely beautiful. Or at least expensive.
I think it was stolen from the Grand Central Station waltz scene in "The Fisher King".
I don't like the way it uses clips instead of sticking to one song. Nor do I care for all the shots of delighted onlookers laughing with joy. I prefer to decide if something's awesome for myself.
"Subjects who correctly selected the t-shirt worn by their roommates tended to score high on the emotional tests."
Tended? What does that mean? The number of subjects in the study (22 pairs) is given but no numbers that allows the reader to interpret the results for themselves. No link to that data either. How far did the results deviate from chance? They have a written test for empathy?
I find it much easier to doubt this study believe it's claims. I hate lazy science reporting. Focus on the weird stuff no matter how bad the methodology.
I don't like the way it uses clips instead of sticking to one song. Nor do I care for all the shots of delighted onlookers laughing with joy. I prefer to decide if something's awesome for myself.