Well as I said, I just changed desk position, not due to Feng Shui but because I wanted to eliminate any reflections falling onto my screen in prep for my new 24" monster in a few weeks. There is no question I am feeling different though.
Perhaps you're feeling differently because you've eliminated reflections falling on your screen?
If you've changed aspects of the light (and possibly space?) in your workplace I'd not be the least bit surprised to find you're perceiving differences in 'mood'.
And in that sense Feng Shui could be said to have worked.
Except you didn't do it by Feng Shui,
you did it without Feng Shui.
To investigate your question you need to get a feng shui guy to predict where to sit and test to see if he's right and you do feel better.
Also do a control, sit in a number of other places and see whether you also feel better in any of them. If you do you know that it wasn't feng shui that caused it in those cases.
To be really sure get other people to do the same test and randomly do the control changes of position before the feng shui predicted ones ( just to ensure the order doesn't make a difference.) then you have to worry whether the different people measure 'feel better' in the same way, then.....
I'm with PeeDee on doing your own scientific test rather than relying on anecdote.
I would be stringent statistically. Humans are very good at imaging patterns in random data. We're built that way.
If anything claims to achieve a change the first test is to predict the change in advance and then achieve the prediction. Just observing something has happened and claiming something caused it does not make the grade. The second thing is to compare a control with identical circumstances.
If there is any difference in results you have to check it propely in case its just a random variation.
Bear in mind what random means. Random means its perfectly ok for unusual patterns to occur.
Lottery numbers of 1 2 3 4 5 are just as likely as any other. Last weeks lottery numbers are just as likely as any others to occur this week.
The MMR scare doctor had random results, but it looked like a pattern and he stupidly thought random meant evenly spread out. The journalistic reporting of his mistake screwed up an aspect of healthcare for the whole country.
So beware of how easy it is to convince yourself of something.
Consider this example;
My step-father got lung cancer.
He was told the average life expectancy was 3 years
He lived another 25 years.
He firmly believed this was due to the self help treatments he learned at the Bristol Cancer Centre - because out of 100 similar lung cancer patients he was the only one who survived that long.
And many folk would agree with him, except -
He 'forgot' that the doctor had also told him the figures showed that while the average was 3 years 1 in a hundred would live over 25 years.
The Bristol centre is a good place, they do good work. I've advised friends to consider it.
Did it 'cure' my stepfather, or was he the 1 in a 100 that would have lived anyway? There's no way to show either way.
or maybe the alcohol from last night, or the glue sniffing this morning of course? 
