Using the same method as in Study 1, we asked 20 University of Pennsylvania undergraduates to listen to either “When I’m Sixty-Four” by The Beatles or “Kalimba.” Then, in an ostensibly unrelated task, they indicated their birth date (mm/dd/yyyy) and their father’s age. We used father’s age to control for variation in baseline age across participants. An ANCOVA revealed the predicted effect: According to their birth dates, people were nearly a year-and-a-half younger after listening to “When I’m Sixty-Four” (adjusted M = 20.1 years) rather than to “Kalimba” (adjusted M = 21.5 years), F(1, 17) = 4.92, p = .040
This is by far the most awesome thing I’ve read in a while.
I’m sorry if I state the obvious, but you do realise that the paper is about the fact that this result does not hold, and is a result of the misuse of statistics?
No, I thought listening to songs could actually change your chronological age. (Or is that comment supposed to be some kind of joke, but is too subtle for me to get it?)
Actually, I didn’t get your ‘awesome’. Internet-irony etc. In outside-LW world, I bet there would be plenty of people who’d actually believe the claim, so I thought some of that may have gone into this. Should have checked your other posts.
This is by far the most awesome thing I’ve read in a while.
I’m sorry if I state the obvious, but you do realise that the paper is about the fact that this result does not hold, and is a result of the misuse of statistics?
I think the poster you replied to meant “awesome” in the sense of “hilarious”.
No, I thought listening to songs could actually change your chronological age. (Or is that comment supposed to be some kind of joke, but is too subtle for me to get it?)
Actually, I didn’t get your ‘awesome’. Internet-irony etc. In outside-LW world, I bet there would be plenty of people who’d actually believe the claim, so I thought some of that may have gone into this. Should have checked your other posts.