I loved when I would pick up the older wireless phone, with a base, to find before I dialed, my friend I intended to call, was already on the phone. It hadn’t even begun to ring! Such marvelous phenomena! This happened at least 20x.
Why are the callers told who made the call after making the guess? In the paper explaining the experiment, one can see that all the girls switched to or guessed a different caller from the previous one (the one who made the previous call). May be the experiment is creating some sort of bias by disclosing who made the call? May be some subtle effect similar to the Monty Hall problem is going on here?
Yes it is true, a throw of a perfect dice would not create bias in itself. But telling the girls who the actual caller was, after they made the guess, might create a bias. It is evident in the paper that in all their following guesses, all the girls guessed a different caller from the actual caller in the previous call. If you read the Monty Hall effect, switching to a different door once the host reveals what is behind one of the doors increases the probability to 2/3 even though it looks obvious that the probability is 1/2. So I feel there is a similar subtle effect. One can check this by simply listing out the sample spaces, or may be try the experiment again without revealing the name of the callers .....
But the dice could still pick the same person in a row. The chance would be the same. The Monty Hall effect would only lower her success rate if it limited her responses. But her success rate was double chance. That's a very high score.
@@robertwilliams8364 I do not understand how the Monty Hall effect lowers the success rate. Could u explain more? It actually increases the probability from 1/3 to 2/3, so it doubles the success rate. I think there is a similarity here. Revealing who the caller was after each call might have an unintended consequence similar to revealing the goat in the Monty Hall problem.
I loved when I would pick up the older wireless phone, with a base, to find before I dialed, my friend I intended to call, was already on the phone. It hadn’t even begun to ring! Such marvelous phenomena! This happened at least 20x.
Why are the callers told who made the call after making the guess? In the paper explaining the experiment, one can see that all the girls switched to or guessed a different caller from the previous one (the one who made the previous call). May be the experiment is creating some sort of bias by disclosing who made the call? May be some subtle effect similar to the Monty Hall problem is going on here?
Looking at the sample spaces might show if there was bias.
Yes it is true, a throw of a perfect dice would not create bias in itself. But telling the girls who the actual caller was, after they made the guess, might create a bias. It is evident in the paper that in all their following guesses, all the girls guessed a different caller from the actual caller in the previous call. If you read the Monty Hall effect, switching to a different door once the host reveals what is behind one of the doors increases the probability to 2/3 even though it looks obvious that the probability is 1/2. So I feel there is a similar subtle effect. One can check this by simply listing out the sample spaces, or may be try the experiment again without revealing the name of the callers .....
But the dice could still pick the same person in a row. The chance would be the same.
The Monty Hall effect would only lower her success rate if it limited her responses. But her success rate was double chance.
That's a very high score.
@@robertwilliams8364 I do not understand how the Monty Hall effect lowers the success rate. Could u explain more? It actually increases the probability from 1/3 to 2/3, so it doubles the success rate. I think there is a similarity here. Revealing who the caller was after each call might have an unintended consequence similar to revealing the goat in the Monty Hall problem.
This is nonsense
Great!
Where was Bernie this looks like it was before she sadly passed away
Yes, the experiment would be a lot more impressive if it had been conducted post mortem.
This was 2004 and Bernie was in The Bill at the time so she was probably too busy with that commitment to appear on this