171–180 of 311 posts
I ran this experiment for a while (code at https://github.com/darius/wason , derived from http://lesswrong.com/lw/g2/positive_bias_test_c_program/ ). In my logs most people seem to have gotten it right, though presumably that's because it was linked from LessWrong. For an actually-fun game like this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zendo_%28game%29 .
I'm curious to see more about the distribution of questions and answers people had, and how the HN population may differ from the NYT's. There will certainly be self selection bias here, but if you're willing to share how you did with others, please enter it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17e5BIL0lH8OHsGj89Zdtdl8GeCV... The result summary is visible here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17e5BIL0lH8OHsGj89Zdtdl…
As a result we can't really rely on overall accuracy, but we can break it out by yes/no to account for the selection bias to get a profile for how a HN correct and incorrect differ.
An incredibly stupid example is that the rule could be "yes for strictly increasing, OR if one of the numbers is -18273192783127897981." You'll never know.
I understand this is contrived, especially when the test subject doesn't know. But if you do realize this while doing it, it makes the test a little frustrating..
EDIT: I see people are making a connection with unit testing, and the irony is poetic. This is precisely the problem Dijkstra was talking about when he said that "Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just writing this out! I believe practice in unit testing is what let me get this question right. I almost submitted n^1, n^2, n^3 before I realized I didn't get any wrong answers and something didn't feel right. I credit this 'instinct' to having written thousands of tests, and trying to make them fail to make sure my tests weren't lying to me.
got tricked even if I tested 1, 1, 1
By using following three numbers I got No when the result should have been YES, just goes on to show that there are too many "YES" Men. I think the reasoning and logic employed in this article is shoddy. The reality is much more complex and we do not have access to a perfect oracle.
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you try floating point numbers? I didn't see anything in the text that said integers only.
I tried floating point numbers. Also, at 28 decimal places, the test breaks; it's not arbitrary precision. So, technically, the answer isn't simply "any ascending sequence of numbers".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here - I was also guilty of feeling a bit clever and avoiding the obvious "oh, the numbers double every time" answer. So, when I found out that if the spelling of each number was one letter longer (4 = four letters, 8 = five letters, 11 = six) I got smug, and didn't bother testing further. Good article - and a humbling experience. :)
I went for the slightly more clever "series of powers" after 3/9/27 validated.
I'm curious to see more about the distribution of questions and answers people had, and how the HN population may differ from the NYT's. There will certainly be self selection bias here, but if you're willing to share how you did with others, please enter it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17e5BIL0lH8OHsGj89Zdtdl8GeCV... The result summary is visible here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17e5BIL0lH8OHsGj89Zdtdl…
This is now the fourth time I've seen this exact rule. Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo It's probably not "fair" to say I got it in zero... but I did. :) Now that the NYT has done it, this puzzle has probably attained enough popularity now that you really ought to change it up a bit now if you're going to run it yourself. Granted, the space of hypotheses as simple as "increasing/decreasing…
I suspect that the basic idea behind it is about right (people who insist on failures before committing to a theory will probably do "better"). But it seems to me that this test will be best at selecting people who've seen it before and can pretend they didn't (or even remember to ask negative questions when someone asks you to guess three numbers to get the job).
Here's a javscript version: http://www.archimedes-lab.org/mastermind.html