5 ms·
I understood my task as convincing another _human_ that it was randomly generated. Since N was low for each of the tasks, I was deliberate about sometimes havin
by thombles 4y ago
I understood my task as convincing another _human_ that it was randomly generated. Since N was low for each of the tasks, I was deliberate about sometimes having repeated values, and not ensuring that every option was picked an equal number of times, since that looks suspiciously algorithmic. Apparently I'm over 60.
- afro88 4y agoSame reasoning here, and same result.
- guywhocodes 4y agoMy age was guessed as over 60 as a result of this, which I guess is in line with their assumptions but maybe not for the right reason
- thomasguide 4y agoSame here.
- telesilla 4y agoI got the same answer as you, over 60, the first time as I was also very deliberate then went back and did it again like a 3 year old, jabbed anywhere and got a higher random result. Maybe there is something to the study?
- CipherThrowaway 4y agoPicking evenly seems to consistently produce higher "randomness" scores than picking unevenly or using an RNG. I wonder how this algorithm would rank random sequences vs shuffled linear sequences. The fundamental issue with a randomness metric for sequences is that an idealized independent generator will under-perform vs a constrained generator that excludes low scoring sequences.
- indecisive_user 4y agoAs I understood it, their entire point is that younger people are not better at generating random sequences than older people, so guessing someone's age based on their complexity (randomness) score is completely unreliable. Towards the bottom of the page they said they've only guessed age correctly 51% of the time, which lines up with there being no correlation between age and ability to generate random sequences
- thombles 4y agoMy point isn't the age result that I mentioned. (I believe their claim that it's bogus.) It's that the instruction to click "as randomly as possible" is ambiguous so at best they're measuring an average of the behaviours they think they are.
- Danieru 4y agoThose are the instructions from the original survey. Those if destructions being under defined, yes that is part of thr entire point.
- dtech 4y agoThey are not, these are the instructions from the reproduction > Tap a sequence of 10 dice rolls. Make it look as random as possible; another person should not be able to tell if you made it up or if it was from real dice rolls. And this is the excerpt from the study they mention > Click on a number between one and six as randomly as possible to produce the kind of sequence you'd get if you really rolled a die [...] I made the same mistake as thombles, the new instructions make it sound like the objective is to trick a human. The original clearly states the objective is to be random. They are not the same objective, as humans are terrible at recognizing randomness.
- fweimer 4y agoIndeed. This is very odd for a study designed as a reproduction of a different study. Why use different prompts?
- Freeboots 4y agoI also repeated a lot, and left out options, etc. It rated me as more random than 84% and under 60 shrug
- lqet 4y agoDito.
- jokethrowaway 4y agoSame reasoning and I got under 60, more random than 74% of the responses.
- Xplune13 4y agoExactly, and I guess my days are numbered.
- IshKebab 4y agoThe entire point of this is that their age estimate is totally random.