Skip to main content

I take it all back - Feng Shui works (but it's still rubbish)

I really thought I'd seen the back of Feng Shui with my posts decrying Heart FM's support for this nonsense and getting advertising on it from Facebook. But no, I really can't leave it alone after the latest coverage on Heart.

The scenario is this. A single presenter from the Heart breakfast show wants to get some love life. So as a test, a Feng Shui 'expert' has been brought in. She is working the magic on his room and they will see if things get better. Obviously not scientific, but it won't stop them saying how wonderful Feng Shui is if the presenter gets a girlfriend.

Okay, so what's the first thing the Feng Shui expert says? Tidy up (the place was a total tip), clean and declutter. Then they add in all the magic woo like crystals, statues and orientation. But hold hard there. Of course it's going to work if you tidy up, clean and declutter. This isn't Feng Shui, it's a Kim & Aggie Shoe-in. It's hardly a surprise someone will have more chance with the opposite sex if they take them back to a flat that isn't littered with dirty underwear and old takeaways.

The only realistic test if the Feng Shui worked would be to do it hundreds of times, and to do the magic stuff without tidying, cleaning and decluttering. (But of course they will say the magic will only work in a neat, tidy environment. Nice one, guys.)

So here's the bombshell. In these circumstances, Feng Shui does work. But it would work equally well without all the woo - and without the fee. Tidy up, clean and declutter. No consultation needed. Job done.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope