It is actually about challenging the user to come up with a random sequence, which is pretty difficult without a coin to flip, an irrational number to copy, etc.
When I just "randomly" mash the keys, the prediction rate is around 70%. I have to intentionally focus to avoid patterns as much as I can and then I'm able to pull it down to 54%.
Dan Ariely[1] did a similar spiel when teaching according to his book. He asked half of class to flip a coin and write down the sequence. The other half was supposed to write down a random sequence without the coin flips. Then he collected the papers, read them out and he claims he was able to tell almost every student whether they did the real coin flips or just simulated ones.
[1] - yes, his papers were retracted because he manipulated data
I managed to keep it below 45% without any real thought for inputs greater than 100 keystrokes. The biggest problem humans have with randomness is that they underestimate the possibility of long runs (they are rare but not that rare).
It is actually about challenging the user to come up with a random sequence, which is pretty difficult without a coin to flip, an irrational number to copy, etc.
When I just "randomly" mash the keys, the prediction rate is around 70%. I have to intentionally focus to avoid patterns as much as I can and then I'm able to pull it down to 54%.
Dan Ariely[1] did a similar spiel when teaching according to his book. He asked half of class to flip a coin and write down the sequence. The other half was supposed to write down a random sequence without the coin flips. Then he collected the papers, read them out and he claims he was able to tell almost every student whether they did the real coin flips or just simulated ones.
[1] - yes, his papers were retracted because he manipulated data