4 ms·

Exactly, and their "good" dice roll sequence, 3 1 5 6 2 6 3 4 4 1 contained the full set which should only happen ~1/4 of the time for 10 rolls. It also contain

by Elyra 4y ago

Exactly, and their "good" dice roll sequence, 3 1 5 6 2 6 3 4 4 1 contained the full set which should only happen ~1/4 of the time for 10 rolls. It also contained no number more than twice, which should happen < 7% of the time. This looks to me like they purposely tried to make this sequence look like their idea of "random". I'm curious about how they scored this section because my overall age was reported to be 60+ with the sequence 2 1 5 2 6 2 2 4 6 6.

breakfastduck 4y ago
1/4 of the time and <7% does not make it impossible. In fact thats kinda the whole point of RNG.
zeven7 4y ago
I also scored 60+ (actual age is in my 30s). I had similar thoughts and also did things like not use up all the numbers and repeat numbers more than twice exactly because I've looked at a lot of random number sequences in my life and I was trying to make it look like one of those.
- hakre 4y ago
  > I've looked at a lot of random number sequences in my life and I was trying to make it look like one of those. This is perhaps the difference between pseudo and statistically random. No idea which of those the study or the experiment is trying to validate btw. And IIRC, interestingly they write that human capacity to create random numbers declines 25+. I can imagine that the older we are the more we look for something to make our decisions look more random based on what we've learned so far - more time, there was more time to look at more random number sequences - and the less random the outcome will be.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    > And IIRC, interestingly they write that human capacity to create random numbers declines 25+. I can imagine that the older we are the more we look for something to make our decisions look more random based on what we've learned so far - more time, there was more time to look at more random number sequences - and the less random the outcome will be. This is what they are testing, and at least based on the data they've got so far, it looks like it increases up to 25-ish and then stays pretty flat. Another possibly interesting observation is that their preliminary data set (just eyeballing it, but) looks to have gotten 1) a flatter response 2) generally, less random responses Which leads me to wonder if the live stats have been skewed more random as there might be some correlation between "interested in this sort of thing" and "has some idea what a random distribution ought to look like," and possibly this knowledge doesn't go away with age.
    - BizarroLand 4y ago
      My opinion is that "real" randomness looks less random than artificial randomness. That's why Apple changed iTunes random music shuffle to be less random because people complained that it wasn't random enough and replayed songs too close together. https://www.cultofmac.com/181517/why-itunes-shuffling-order-isnt-really-random/ https://www.cultofmac.com/181517/why-itunes-shuffling-order-...
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > This is what they are testing (human capacity to create random numbers declines 25+) Not really; what they're testing is what kinds of response differently-aged people give to their question. So it's important what the question actually is; and it's important if the question might, for example, seem to older people to be a waste of their time. They're not measuring what they claim to be measuring.
  - albedoa 4y ago
    > This is perhaps the difference between pseudo and statistically random. Not quite. Pseudo-randomness is defined as being indistinguishable from a uniform distribution, meaning if the next in a sequence is no more predictable than a statistically random selection.
hakre 4y ago
I always pressed the same button. Let's say 10x 1. You get a rating below 60 then. Just in case you need the sequence to come towards your real age group when you redo the experiment. Perhaps to guess random is also in the property of the age of someone clicking on a website? Perhaps someone should create an experiment that finds their experiment flawed ^^

by Elyra 4y ago

breakfastduck 4y ago

1/4 of the time and <7% does not make it impossible. In fact thats kinda the whole point of RNG.

zeven7 4y ago

I also scored 60+ (actual age is in my 30s). I had similar thoughts and also did things like not use up all the numbers and repeat numbers more than twice exactly because I've looked at a lot of random number sequences in my life and I was trying to make it look like one of those.

hakre 4y ago
> I've looked at a lot of random number sequences in my life and I was trying to make it look like one of those. This is perhaps the difference between pseudo and statistically random. No idea which of those the study or the experiment is trying to validate btw. And IIRC, interestingly they write that human capacity to create random numbers declines 25+. I can imagine that the older we are the more we look for something to make our decisions look more random based on what we've learned so far - more time, there was more time to look at more random number sequences - and the less random the outcome will be.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  > And IIRC, interestingly they write that human capacity to create random numbers declines 25+. I can imagine that the older we are the more we look for something to make our decisions look more random based on what we've learned so far - more time, there was more time to look at more random number sequences - and the less random the outcome will be. This is what they are testing, and at least based on the data they've got so far, it looks like it increases up to 25-ish and then stays pretty flat. Another possibly interesting observation is that their preliminary data set (just eyeballing it, but) looks to have gotten 1) a flatter response 2) generally, less random responses Which leads me to wonder if the live stats have been skewed more random as there might be some correlation between "interested in this sort of thing" and "has some idea what a random distribution ought to look like," and possibly this knowledge doesn't go away with age.
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    My opinion is that "real" randomness looks less random than artificial randomness. That's why Apple changed iTunes random music shuffle to be less random because people complained that it wasn't random enough and replayed songs too close together. https://www.cultofmac.com/181517/why-itunes-shuffling-order-isnt-really-random/ https://www.cultofmac.com/181517/why-itunes-shuffling-order-...
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > This is what they are testing (human capacity to create random numbers declines 25+) Not really; what they're testing is what kinds of response differently-aged people give to their question. So it's important what the question actually is; and it's important if the question might, for example, seem to older people to be a waste of their time. They're not measuring what they claim to be measuring.
- albedoa 4y ago
  > This is perhaps the difference between pseudo and statistically random. Not quite. Pseudo-randomness is defined as being indistinguishable from a uniform distribution, meaning if the next in a sequence is no more predictable than a statistically random selection.

hakre 4y ago

I always pressed the same button. Let's say 10x 1. You get a rating below 60 then. Just in case you need the sequence to come towards your real age group when you redo the experiment. Perhaps to guess random is also in the property of the age of someone clicking on a website? Perhaps someone should create an experiment that finds their experiment flawed ^^