We think this cool study we found is flawed. Help us reproduce it
&gt; so that if another person is shown your sequence of digits from 1 to 6, he&#x2F;she should not be able to tell whether these numbers were produced by a real die or just “made up” by somebody.<p>That instruction is a flaw in the experiment. It&#x27;s <i>always</i> impossible to tell, for any given sequence, whether it was produced by a fair die. There&#x27;s nothing an experimental subject can do to make the impossible more impossible.<p>&gt; the kind of sequence you’d get if you really rolled a die<p>Well, there is no such sequence. The instruction is incoherent.<p>You could take it as meaning &quot;Construct a sequence that you think will convince others that it came from a random source&quot;. That would be coherent. And then it <i>would</i> be legitimate to eliminate responses that were all-heads (&quot;clearly didn&#x27;t even try&quot;). But then what are you measuring? The comparative understanding of older and youger people concerning random sources, or the Gambler&#x27;s Paradox? Their comparative expertise in human psychology? Their comparative willingness to move the mouse-pointer over the screen?