ellauri100.html on line 529: Your score on the OCT is calculated by taking into account your familiarity with the real items (e.g., Bill Clinton) and subtracting how familiar you rated the false/fake items to be (e.g., Fred Gruneberg — my next door neighbor). Also, familiarity ratings of 1 to 4 are treated the same. So if you rated your familiarity with “Bill Clinton” as 1, 2, 3, or 4 then you scored a +1 for that item. And if you rated your familiarity with “Fred Gruneberg” as 1, 2, 3, or 4 then you scored a -1 for that item. If you were unfamiliar with any real or false items, your scores for those items are 0. A perfect score would be identifying all real items and not recognizing any of the false items.
ellauri100.html on line 535: The scales you completed were designed to assess your familiarity with scientific research processes and your comfort with working with numerical information. The order in which you received them was randomized.
ellauri133.html on line 366: If you only have a passing familiarity with Stephen King´s original novel, you might think It is simply about a killer clown. But there’s far more to the sprawling saga of The Losers´ Club and the fictional setting of Derry, Maine. Here are 10 things you might not have known about the bestselling book of 1986.
ellauri219.html on line 798: No it is not because of the clash in values between American individualism and libertarianism, and the rest of the West’s social democracy and collectivism. That’s a contributing factor among those with enough cultural affinity and exposure to get to know how the US ticks, which maybe explains some of the last decade or so, with the Internet. But again, the “Death to Amreeka” crowds, the sneering at the unsophisticated doughboys, the dismissal of American culture—all that predated that deep familiarity by decades. The discovery of the substantive cultural mismatches were again a late addition and confirmation bias. (How I like the scientific sound of it: confirmation bias.)
xxx/ellauri169.html on line 471: Sometimes you can tell from the first shot. In “Compartment No. 6,” the camera follows a young woman at a party as she leaves a bathroom and enters a living room full of gathered friends. That walking, back-of-the-head shot is one of the soggiest conventions of the steadicam era, a facile way of conveying characters’ own fields of vision while anchoring the action on them. The familiarity of this trope suggests both limited imagination and an unwillingness to commit to a clear-cut point of view.
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 433: Sometimes you can tell from the first shot. In “Compartment No. 6,” the camera follows a young woman at a party as she leaves a bathroom and enters a living room full of gathered friends. That walking, back-of-the-head shot is one of the soggiest conventions of the steadicam era, a facile way of conveying characters’ own fields of vision while anchoring the action on them. The familiarity of this trope suggests both limited imagination and an unwillingness to commit to a clear-cut point of view. When used cannily, it can convey ambiguous neutrality and looming mystery, but, more often, it suggests the merely functional recording of action, which is exactly what’s delivered in “Compartment No. 6,” opening in theatres on Wednesday. The movie sinks, fast and deep, under the weight of dramatic shortcuts, overemphatic details, undercooked possibilities, unconsidered implications. It’s heavy-handed, tendentious, and regressive—and it should come as no surprise that it’s on the fifteen-film shortlist for the Best International Feature Oscar.
xxx/ellauri354.html on line 263: Frederic Henry and Catherine Barkley show familiarity with well-known painters (Mantegna, Rubens, Titian) and with canonic authors (Shakespeare, Marvell), but their current reading is sparse, practical, and not literary: Catherine reads the Almanac and Frederic reads magazines and newspapers (mostly out of date).
7