Comments on: The Power of…7 ?

By: Anya

Anya — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:56:17 +0000

“How do other cultures respond with their lucky/unlucky numbers and different sets of rhyming sound?” kapakapa

Below are results of my small poll made in Russia.
7 (2)
11(1)
13(1)
15(1)
17(3)
19(1)

By: beezle

beezle — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:11:33 +0000

I mentioned this to a friend who is in PR. His ‘explanation’ was that
people tend towards 17 as being ‘not too good’ but still good; ie people are viewing the range as if it were the results of a test and wish to ‘do well’ but still be somewhat ‘humble’.

I would like to see two further tests: 100-120 and 40-60 or 60-80.
In the latter, if there were still a bias towards ‘17′ (57 or 77) his idea
might have credence.

By: H H

H H — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:40:27 +0000

—Andy on Feb 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

—Quantum mechanical uncertainty goes beyond a mere lack —of infinite precision in the initial conditions but is —inherent.

That’s my main question, what do you mean by inherent? I’d like to see a rigorous definition of this inherent randomness that you are talking about. And since it seems to be a property that we are claiming physical systems/processes to have, the definition, should allow for certifiability (by this I mean being able to test if the system/process is ‘inherently’ random by some measurements), else it’s unlikely it’ll make much sense.

By: Garrett

Garrett — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:14:09 +0000

Today’s xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/c221.html

By: PK

PK — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:25:06 +0000

Matt, that is a different experiment. Isn’t the whole point that we want to know how people perceive numbers?

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:56:15 +0000

Why not just have a sheet of paper with twenty identical hashmarks on it and ask people to check the one they felt the best about? It might eliminate some bias.

By: Sipior

Sipior — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:49:36 +0000

Emphasising kapakapa’s point No 2, it would be really interesting to conduct this experiment not only among speakers of different languages, but also among users of different number representations. In other words, is this presumptive predilection based upon how we write the number, how we internally vocalise the number, or how we perceive the number itself?

By: sbar

sbar — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:03:41 +0000

I think Julianne makes a good point. Computers would obviously not favor 17 over other numbers. This points to the human mind not considering all numbers equally random.Our mind most likely perceives prime numbers as more random since they don’t evoke any particular pattern. The 3 most chosen numbers 17,13 and 7 are all prime numbers. I think random number for the brain does not equate to: all outcomes are equiprobable but rather to: not showing any pattern.

By: kapakapa

kapakapa — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:26:00 +0000

The results are certainly mysterious in many ways, not just a pronounced affinity to 17 but the lowest frequency of 9 over 1 or 20. Both lucky 7 and sometimes ominous 13 are the second and the third ‘random’ choices. It would be interesting to compare with different schemes:

1. What if the numbers range from ,for example,4-29 or odd-odd/even-even range other than starting with 1 and ending with multiples of 10?

2. How do other cultures respond with their lucky/unlucky numbers and different sets of rhyming sound?

3. If 17 happens to be the most frequent across cultures, how do you explain it?

4. Which appears consistently higher, odd or even number? Any cultural difference there?

5. Quote: ‘Dom hypothesized to me that the “first guess” of an individual can never be considered “true random”, and that subsequent guesses become more random and less motivated by deductive reasoning.’

If you give them a second and third chances in 10sec./1min…., would the answer be different? Would 17 still stand out as the second and the third choices among those who opted for other numbers initially?

Very interesting.

By: Wizard

Wizard — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:01:38 +0000

Oh, no! Introduce worms to can, then aquaint can with tin opener. Also, 9 is one less than the fourth power of two minus six (insert brackets where appropriate (like here)) and is therefore special.