Is it science or just gibberish?

I really don't know whom this lady wants to convince. On one hand, it sounds like science. On the other, it sounds just like mixing up things that don't have a reason to have something to do with each other:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsonBI_uJM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6316131341433275513#

Petr

It's BS.

-Chuckk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Pařízek <petrparizek2000@...> wrote:
>
> I really don't know whom this lady wants to convince. On one hand, it sounds
> like science. On the other, it sounds just like mixing up things that don't
> have a reason to have something to do with each other:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsonBI_uJM
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6316131341433275513#
>
> Petr
>

http://www.soundhealthoptions.com/nanovoice/index.html

This is once software package they give out you can supposedly use to test this.  It would be interesting to see if what it reads matches what you are actually thinking.

--- On Thu, 4/7/11, touchedchuckk <BadMuthaHubbard@...> wrote:

From: touchedchuckk <BadMuthaHubbard@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Is it science or just gibberish?
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 12:21 PM

It's BS.

-Chuckk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Pařízek <petrparizek2000@...> wrote:

>

> I really don't know whom this lady wants to convince. On one hand, it sounds

> like science. On the other, it sounds just like mixing up things that don't

> have a reason to have something to do with each other:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsonBI_uJM

> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6316131341433275513#

>

> Petr

>

Michael wrote:

> This is once software package they give out you can supposedly use to test > this. It would be interesting to see if
> what it reads matches what you are actually thinking.

I've looked for something which would lessen my doubts, so far unsuccessfully.
The part which I'm willing to consider is the fact that the human body may react to particular sounds in particular ways and that these reactions may possibly be predicted if examined systematically.
What I'm not willing to consider is the claim that the selection of the appropriate frequencies may be done according to an ordinary "voice print".
On the website, I haven't found a single paper explaining how such a thing is possible. If they don't explain it, then I can't call it serious research -- serious research has to be backed up by something which is verifiable by some external means.
Then, I see absolutely no reason why a tone of C should signify "this property" and a note of E should signify "that property" of your personal character since each of us has a different voice range, certainly not differing by integer octaves. How can she be interested in absolute pitches without talking about intervals or way of intonation? Again, what does she support her claims with?
And then, all of the voice prints I was able to hear were of people speaking in a very monotonous voice. What does she do with people like me if I'm trying to avoid this behavior since my childhood?
And then, how does she know that her possible patient isn't pretending something else? There are people who can manipulate their voices very effectively and make them sound joious even though their actual mood isn't joious at all.

Petr