> But they didn’t measure that. That's correct. > They’d have to measure that by showing a bunch of people each sequence and asking “is this random?” Agreed!

> But they didn’t measure that. That's correct. > They’d have to measure that by showing a bunch of people each sequence and asking “is this random?” Agreed! > Instead, they threw a complexity formula at it, which measures some specific thing, but not “other people” Yep, they botched the study. Nonetheless, the "ask" that you criticized was fine. It explained that the subject should craft a pattern which would appear random to other people, and imo there's nothing wrong with that ask. The mistakes came afterwards.