I've seen this, but not the conversation part. Thanks.
Similarly a small choir (10 people?) was singing at my stop at christmas time and being in a tunnel the sound was goose-bump inspiring. I of course needing to get home at the end of the day stopped for only a minute. I wished I had stayed longer, there wasn't any reason I couldn't have.
I'm amazed at how many people claimed to break down crying. Maybe DC isn't as cold as it lets on. I just wish we'd show it a little more.
The main purpose of me posting this article was to have readers "form your own conclusion". It seems you may fall into the "This story is a bunch of crap." Unless I am wrong. I have read some of the other criticisms of this article and I even understand where people are coming from. I am actually in agreement with Gene Weingarten on the nature, setup, execution and conclusion of the experiment. The experiment was never intended to be a scientific trial in a clean environment with a control group. Because of this, I am curious how people find the article as pretentious. The author did the experiment to spark conversation and to posit his own ideas as to a possible conclusion given the data presented. Gene never claims to be the final arbiter, nor is the experiment framed as the only way of doing it. I wonder myself if I would have stayed to listen purely on the quality of music being played.
Comments 5
Similarly a small choir (10 people?) was singing at my stop at christmas time and being in a tunnel the sound was goose-bump inspiring. I of course needing to get home at the end of the day stopped for only a minute. I wished I had stayed longer, there wasn't any reason I couldn't have.
I'm amazed at how many people claimed to break down crying. Maybe DC isn't as cold as it lets on. I just wish we'd show it a little more.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment