| Select any number |
| 1 |
|
16% |
[ 10 ] |
| 2 |
|
30% |
[ 18 ] |
| 3 |
|
38% |
[ 23 ] |
| 4 |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 60 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Pendragon |
 Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:15 am Post subject: Randomness experiment, part II |
 |
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
Ok I've tried this before, but there were not enough people on the forum back then. So let's try again: in theory humans (as opposed to computers) are supposed to be able to act randomly. For example, if you ask a human to mention any number between 1 and 4, he/she should be able to pick one without any reason behind it. A computer can't do that.
So let's test this out: If humans can indeed choose randomly, a poll with 4 equal options should give a result of 25%-25%-25%-25%, if the number of people is big enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| invert_nexus |
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 858
|
One flaw in your premise. If someone reads this while not logged in they see the results and thus are skewed. So. I'll hold off on voting for a while after the results have changed and will make sure that I don't read this thread again unless I'm logged in.
A problem with this, of course, is that I don't know how many more people have voted since I've seen the results. There were two then (now?) but no way to know when the results are averaged out. And even then I still remember the two choices that have already been chosen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vslayer |
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 133
Location: new zealand
|
| i didnt do it randomly, i voted the opposite way to selecting a download mirror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| goodgod3rd |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 899
Location: Donegal Ireland
|
 i would of voted.. but i voted in the last one.. so it wouldn't be right!!!!!
*isn't the idea that you vote randomly... so i knew what i was doing..
interesting to see how it turnout
_________________
Stumble through life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
randomness is a strange concept  but we're not doing too bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ryan |
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 9
|
It seems to me that humans would have trouble acting randomly.. considering your poll: number 3 was picked the most-why? well numbers 1 and 4 are on the edges and they look kind of "alone", like numerical intraverts. 2 and 3 are nice and centered. Of those two i personally chose number 3 because it was bigger. now, I didn't consciously think this all out step by step when i voted but for some reason number 3 was simply more psycologicaly appealing, and apparently most others felt so as well.
Computers on the otherhand could generate numbers through an equation in which a varible stood for the value of all the known prime numbers(which appear to be randomly spaced)
i.e.- Each time the computer ran through the equation, it would use the next prime number in line.
-Ryan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| greentea |
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 4
|
| I chose 2 following some weird sequence of logic, as well. You must account for psychology in the poll. Like repeat the experiment with shuffling. Still, some subconscious associations will play a role. 3 is sacred for some people, 2 and 1 are quite special as numbers. I have no idea how to design a 'human random number generator' without bias. The computer probably works better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
| Ryan wrote: |
Computers on the otherhand could generate numbers through an equation in which a varible stood for the value of all the known prime numbers(which appear to be randomly spaced)
i.e.- Each time the computer ran through the equation, it would use the next prime number in line.
-Ryan |
Tnx, I didn't know that
| greentea wrote: |
| Still, some subconscious associations will play a role. 3 is sacred for some people, 2 and 1 are quite special as numbers. I have no idea how to design a 'human random number generator' without bias. The computer probably works better. |
Would be funny to see whether people from different cultural backgrounds choose different numbers more often because of their associations with it. Or whether individuals have the same tendency.
It is striking that numbers 1 and 4 are hardly ever chosen, even though we allready have 14 votes. The statistical chance for this outcome is quite small!
Maybe we are just trying to hard to be random, and therefore try to vote for something that doesnt make sense. Numbers 1 and 4 have a clear meaning: they are the highest and lowest values. Numbers 2 and 3 however have no meaning at all, and can savely be chosen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| anandsatya |
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 24 Dec 2005
Posts: 67
Location: India
|
| Ryan wrote: |
| It seems to me that humans would have trouble acting randomly.. considering your poll: number 3 was picked the most-why? well numbers 1 and 4 are on the edges and they look kind of "alone", like numerical intraverts. 2 and 3 are nice and centered. -Ryan |
I agree with Rayn since i voted for 3. The solution for this problem is the options must be alligned in shape of a circle.
How about asking some help from the Administrator to allign the options in the shape of a circle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chamilton333 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 346
|
after seeing the results, i have a theory. most humans would pick somewhere in the middle, not on the extremities. though others would almost always pick the extremities.
_________________
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it
the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| weirdesky |
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 27
|
I voted two because it is an awesome number, I didn't really go through it in my head it was probably bedcause I loke the fact it is the only even prime number. But that reason is so stupid, because three is the only prime number that is divisble by 3. Also if people did it by which one is the most special, you can take the primes 1,2 and 3, the squares, 1 and 4, so their really should be more ones if your looking at the most special. That was just a ramble, sorry
_________________
It's hard to soar like an eagle when your flying with turkeys
It's hard to be humble when your as great as I am.
The world changes so fast, you couldn't be wrong all the time even if you tried
Judging by the way some church members live, they need fire insurance
The only thing in life acheived without effort is failure |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
nothing wrong with rambling a bit
With 30 votes in we're starting to get a clear result: it's averaged out a little bit, but clearly the extreme numbers are chosen less often.
I wonder what would happen if we'd use random letters instead of numbers though. Time for a third experiment  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Rakim |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 3
|
| My dad is a bricklayer, and he's always said that it's difficult when building a house with "random" brickwork. He said that the more you try and spread the different colours out, the more of a pattern you get, which is not at all random. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (In)Sanity |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 2139
Location: Phoenix AZ
|
| Computers have been able to create truly random numbers now for some time. It requires a special chip and some radiation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Imaplanck. |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 399
|
'3' before I read the thread.
I think the experiment is a success in as much as it proves that humans are indeed poor at choosing randomly.
_________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
Last edited by Imaplanck. on Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
