schwza
05-20-2005, 04:23 PM
see link: http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050518_red_wins.html
unless there's more to it, these guys are claiming that because the person in red won 19/29 1-on-1 events (colors assigned randomly), that's enough evidence that red helped. that's frickin' ridiculous. i'm sure you could find equally dumb, equally robust results for who did the referee look at first, who was closest to north when the match started, etc.
unless there's more to it, these guys are claiming that because the person in red won 19/29 1-on-1 events (colors assigned randomly), that's enough evidence that red helped. that's frickin' ridiculous. i'm sure you could find equally dumb, equally robust results for who did the referee look at first, who was closest to north when the match started, etc.