The original work suggests the opposite of your conclusion > In a landmark article, foundational to the field of behavioral economics, Tversky and Kahneman (Re

The original work suggests the opposite of your conclusion > In a landmark article, foundational to the field of behavioral economics, Tversky and Kahneman (Reference Tversky and Kahneman1974:1130) argued that humans do not infer the statistical regularities embedded in everyday experience because they “are not coded appropriately”—meaning that the quantitative features inherent in these experiences are not isolated, noted, and organized in ways that reveal probabilistic patterns that are usually obscured by the noise of other incoming experience. Intriguingly, Native American dice games appear to perform such a “coding” function. They produce a simplified stream of random events that are carefully observed and recorded at multiple levels: in the scoring of individual dice throws, in the keeping of cumulative scores in single matches, and in tallying wins and losses in multiple matches over time as recorded by the giving or receiving of goods. Therefore, by observing and recording the patterns appearing in these outcomes, ancient Native American dice players repeatedly presented themselves with the very type of “coded” experiences that Tversky and Kahneman (Reference Tversky and Kahneman1974) argued would allow humans to observe and infer the presence of underlying probabilistic regularities. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/-/E38C7B1F4CE7F417D8EFAC5AFEEF20A2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/a... Also the fact that these games are so widespread (239 sets found across 130 different tribes from 30 different linguistic lots) makes me feel like it's highly implausible that abstractions of the rules of the games did not arise