5 ms·

> Do you think the questionable response looks genuinely random and satisfies the instructions? We don’t. Could someone explain why putting sequences of same c

> Do you think the questionable response looks genuinely random and satisfies the instructions? We don’t. Could someone explain why putting sequences of same choice is invalid? Sure, a probability of having many tails continously is low but how is it not random?

jat850 4y ago
This is a key point in the article. The researchers (original) did not want to throw out the data that doesn't "seem random", this group argues in favour of doing so.
- searchableguy 4y ago
  Yeah, I read that part and I can't make sense of it. How are they deciding what is reasonably random?
  - jat850 4y ago
    I felt the same way, for what it's worth.
  - AnnikaL 4y ago
    > so that if another person is shown your sequence of digits from 1 to 6, he/she should not be able to tell whether these numbers were produced by a real die or just "made up" by somebody This explanation leads me to think that the decision of what is random in the study is based on human perceptions of randomness, not actual statistical randomness. Although any sequence is equally (un)likely to be rolled, 1111111111 would stand out from the other sequences much more than 3156263441.
  - jonas21 4y ago
    No, they're just saying that no person who was following the instructions would produce a sequence of all heads or all tails as a "random" sequence, so they're throwing out those two specific sequences.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Look at the graph of responses. There are a few clear clusters and lines outside of the main, statistically random cluster. Those other ones can be dropped.
raverbashing 4y ago
I think the idea of "make this look random" is kinda like "pretend you're tossing the coin and copy the results" It's not that the single values sequences are invalid, it's that they're occurring with a greater frequency than by chance The players are just trying to sound smart basically
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
espadrine 4y ago
> Sure, a probability of having many tails continously is low but how is it not random? Randomness is never about the output; it is a property of the source. So what is not random, is that the frequency of people that output repeating sequences is higher than the quotient of that sequence among all possible sequences of the same size. The issue of the initial paper is that it claims to conclude that people aged > 60 are less random, when they simply output a fully-repeating sequence with a slightly higher rate (which is not surprising taking into consideration that there are much, much fewer of them).
waqf 4y ago
This can be explained using Bayesian reasoning. P(all heads | bad faith) ≫ P(any given "random"-looking string | bad faith) therefore P(bad faith | all heads) ≫ P(bad faith | any given "random"-looking string) So if you want to exclude bad faith responses, the best strategy (by Neyman–Pearson, if you want to think of it that way) is to remove "all heads" responses (and similarly for "all tails").

jat850 4y ago

This is a key point in the article. The researchers (original) did not want to throw out the data that doesn't "seem random", this group argues in favour of doing so.

searchableguy 4y ago
Yeah, I read that part and I can't make sense of it. How are they deciding what is reasonably random?
- jat850 4y ago
  I felt the same way, for what it's worth.
- AnnikaL 4y ago
  > so that if another person is shown your sequence of digits from 1 to 6, he/she should not be able to tell whether these numbers were produced by a real die or just "made up" by somebody This explanation leads me to think that the decision of what is random in the study is based on human perceptions of randomness, not actual statistical randomness. Although any sequence is equally (un)likely to be rolled, 1111111111 would stand out from the other sequences much more than 3156263441.
- jonas21 4y ago
  No, they're just saying that no person who was following the instructions would produce a sequence of all heads or all tails as a "random" sequence, so they're throwing out those two specific sequences.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Look at the graph of responses. There are a few clear clusters and lines outside of the main, statistically random cluster. Those other ones can be dropped.

raverbashing 4y ago

I think the idea of "make this look random" is kinda like "pretend you're tossing the coin and copy the results" It's not that the single values sequences are invalid, it's that they're occurring with a greater frequency than by chance The players are just trying to sound smart basically

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

espadrine 4y ago

> Sure, a probability of having many tails continously is low but how is it not random? Randomness is never about the output; it is a property of the source. So what is not random, is that the frequency of people that output repeating sequences is higher than the quotient of that sequence among all possible sequences of the same size. The issue of the initial paper is that it claims to conclude that people aged > 60 are less random, when they simply output a fully-repeating sequence with a slightly higher rate (which is not surprising taking into consideration that there are much, much fewer of them).

waqf 4y ago

This can be explained using Bayesian reasoning. P(all heads | bad faith) ≫ P(any given "random"-looking string | bad faith) therefore P(bad faith | all heads) ≫ P(bad faith | any given "random"-looking string) So if you want to exclude bad faith responses, the best strategy (by Neyman–Pearson, if you want to think of it that way) is to remove "all heads" responses (and similarly for "all tails").