51–60 of 361 posts
I understood my task as convincing another _human_ that it was randomly generated. Since N was low for each of the tasks, I was deliberate about sometimes having repeated values, and not ensuring that every option was picked an equal number of times, since that looks suspiciously algorithmic. Apparently I'm over 60.
Over 60 according to something, but I’m not. Hypothesis: the older a person is, the more likely they are to understand that HHHHHHHHH is a statistically likely outcome from true randomness.
https://www.incibe-cert.es/sites/default/files/blog/comproba...
Beautifully crafted web page. For any experimental science, the integrity of experiment (thus reliability of data) is important. For experiments with human subjects, the question is whether the subjects answered the questions in good faith. A sequence like 'HHHHHHHHHH' for the coin toss experiment looks like an answer in bad faith; it is mechanically easy to keep pressing the same button, and a subject is unlikely to…
Agree with your post, but don't believe that the authors paper made this claim unless I am missing something?
“The researchers believe that you can only analyze the raw responses because, statistically, any sequence is equally likely to occur, so where do you draw the line?”
I’d say that, as it is a psychological study, making claims about a human behavior, treating humans as pure random number generators without considering _intent_ is a mistake.
It is entirely possible that older people fill in more “questionable” responses because they can’t be bothered with the study, and that this causes the “decline” in ability as people age.
But we don’t know for sure, because it was never investigated. Thus, the biggest problem is the original study not even bringing this into light, even though it appears the original authors were aware of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's their point. Since there isn't an actual correlation, their guess is basically 50/50.
But if their guess is 50/50, that is from a subset that is mostly under-60's, which presumably means that they have evidence for the opposite? (i.e. there is no statement that the 51% figure is age adjusted) I'm probably just being silly here...
Can anyone describe in a nutshell how measures of randomness work? Every sequence generated by independent random choices is equally likely, right?
This effectively looks at how easy it would theoretically be to compress/describe the data, for instance HHHHHHHHHH would be low complexity as it could be encoded as '10 H's'.
If something is truly random, it shouldn't be possible to encode it due to the pigeon-hole principle.
See http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_complexity
> 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?
"As for our initial idea to make an age-guessing game, we have guessed right NaN% of the time. Not as good as we had expected ."
Here is the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
> 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 . Yeah... you thought I was 60. Seems from the comments this is a common thing. You might want to check your algorithms. But then again, you do say in the end of the results that you need more 60+ year olds to help make this more accurate. Also, a bone to pick. You claim that people get less…
