We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
1–10 of 361 posts
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#2[deleted]
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#3> As for our initial idea to make an age-guessing game, we have guessed right 51% of the time. Pretty much what we had expected .
They guessed I was 'Under 60', which I am, but over 50% of people fit into the category of under 60... so the fact they can guess this with only 50% of accuracy doesn't really feel right?
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#4Hm I'm curious about the complexity measurement for the coin tosses. How does it work?
There is suspicious clustering in the plot, at complexity slightly lower and higher than -1. Complexity -1 is also more sparse than seems reasonable from the shape/density of the cloud.
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#5If you cannot see the trend with looking at a diagram, and only algorithm then dont trust the algorithm.
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#6Can anyone describe in a nutshell how measures of randomness work? Every sequence generated by independent random choices is equally likely, right?
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#7> 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?
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#8> As for our initial idea to make an age-guessing game, we have guessed right 51% of the time. Pretty much what we had expected . They guessed I was 'Under 60', which I am, but over 50% of people fit into the category of under 60... so the fact they can guess this with only 50% of accuracy doesn't really feel right?
I think that's their point. Since there isn't an actual correlation, their guess is basically 50/50.
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#9Hm I'm curious about the complexity measurement for the coin tosses. How does it work? There is suspicious clustering in the plot, at complexity slightly lower and higher than -1. Complexity -1 is also more sparse than seems reasonable from the shape/density of the cloud.
I'm also curious about this. Randomness doesn't actually look very random. There's a surprising number of repeated characters.
Re: We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
#10Can anyone describe in a nutshell how measures of randomness work? Every sequence generated by independent random choices is equally likely, right?
They are equally likely, yes. But, the questions here pertain to whether or not an other person would perceive your sequence as random.
It wasn't too long ago there was an article on HN (can't find it now) describing what feels random to people.
Essentially, a sequence feels more random the harder it is to explain.
So, HHHHHHHH doesn't feel random because it's summarized as 8 H's and HTHTHTHT doesn't feel random either because it is HT repeating. Strings that are only really communicable by repeating the string verbatim feel the most random.