Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the testing-if-a-movie-stinks dept.

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft:

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have now developed a method that can objectively evaluate the age at which children and adolescents can safely watch a movie. They measured the composition of air in cinemas as well as levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during 135 screenings of eleven different movies. Over 13,000 audience members were involved. For a variety of film genres and age groups, the researchers found that isoprene levels reliably correlate with the age rating of a film. "Isoprene appears to be a good indicator of emotional tension within a group," says Jonathan Williams, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "Our approach could therefore provide an objective criterion for deciding how movies should be classified."

They couldn't already objectively measure fear by the amount of urine-soaked seat cushions?

C. Stönner, A. Edtbauer, B. Derstroff, E. Bourtsoukidis, T. Klüpfel, J. Wicker, J. Williams. Proof of concept study: Testing human volatile organic compounds as tools for age classification of films. PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (10): e0203044 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203044


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:43PM (4 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:43PM (#753225) Journal

    Uh, given the rather extreme assumption that all positions of each participants are deduced through first order logic from complete information.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:46PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:46PM (#753227)

    In order for something to be reasonable, it must be expressed precisely in objective terms.

    Your denigration of the attempt to add objective terms to the discussion is what's stupid.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:42PM (2 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:42PM (#753256) Journal

      I don't denigrate the objective. I denigrate the obsession with objectivity that misses forests for trees.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:29PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:29PM (#753290)

        Sure, maybe I'm the guy who institutes lines of code.

        Well, you're the guy who institutes human sacrifice.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:40AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:40AM (#753417) Journal

          Ooooh, epistemology, my favorite! Can I play too?

          Define "knowledge." How do you know anything? How do you know THAT you know a thing?

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...