Myrmidonisia
19-05-2005, 21:34
That explains the last two elections! Someone had to finally figure it out. The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/science/19red.html?ex=1274155200&en=1d031441e9853caf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) explains.
The two researchers studied results of the 2004 Summer Olympics to eliminate the possibility of a home team advantage, and found that contestants in tae kwan do, boxing and wrestling were issued red or blue protective gear at random. "It's almost as if somebody had designed an experiment for us," Dr. Barton said.
Dr. Hill said the evidence of a beneficial effect had emerged, with combatants wearing red winning 6 out of 10 bouts in especially close matches. "Even we were surprised at how consistently the results have been coming out across the range of sports we have looked at," he said.
They have taken a preliminary look at soccer as well, and found that in the Euro 2004 international soccer tournament, the five teams that wore predominantly red shirts did better.
Okay, it's sports, not politics, but just maybe...
The two researchers studied results of the 2004 Summer Olympics to eliminate the possibility of a home team advantage, and found that contestants in tae kwan do, boxing and wrestling were issued red or blue protective gear at random. "It's almost as if somebody had designed an experiment for us," Dr. Barton said.
Dr. Hill said the evidence of a beneficial effect had emerged, with combatants wearing red winning 6 out of 10 bouts in especially close matches. "Even we were surprised at how consistently the results have been coming out across the range of sports we have looked at," he said.
They have taken a preliminary look at soccer as well, and found that in the Euro 2004 international soccer tournament, the five teams that wore predominantly red shirts did better.
Okay, it's sports, not politics, but just maybe...