This is a key point in the article. The researchers (original) did not want to throw out the data that doesn't "seem random", this group argues in favour of doing so.
> so that if another person is shown your sequence of digits from 1 to 6, he/she should not be able to tell whether these numbers were produced by a real die or just "made up" by somebody
This explanation leads me to think that the decision of what is random in the study is based on human perceptions of randomness, not actual statistical randomness. Although any sequence is equally (un)likely to be rolled, 1111111111 would stand out from the other sequences much more than 3156263441.
No, they're just saying that no person who was following the instructions would produce a sequence of all heads or all tails as a "random" sequence, so they're throwing out those two specific sequences.
Look at the graph of responses. There are a few clear clusters and lines outside of the main, statistically random cluster. Those other ones can be dropped.
searchableguy|3 years ago
AnnikaL|3 years ago
This explanation leads me to think that the decision of what is random in the study is based on human perceptions of randomness, not actual statistical randomness. Although any sequence is equally (un)likely to be rolled, 1111111111 would stand out from the other sequences much more than 3156263441.
jonas21|3 years ago
adastra22|3 years ago
jat850|3 years ago