The Denes-Raj/Epstein study makes me wonder whether the subjects would still have picked the jar with 100 beans (7 red) if, say, the other jar had been announced to contain 6 beans (5 red) . Is there any “tipping point” (any specific number or percentage of red beans versus other beans) at which the subjects finally choose to follow the probabilities instead of going with “more reds”?
What if the other jar had been stated to contain only 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 bean — but with ALL beans in that jar stated to be red? Would some subjects still go for the jar with 7 red beans in 100 (because 7 is more than five)? Has anyone tested the possibility that some subjects would actually say: “Yes, I know that I’m guaranteed to win if I pick from a jar that contain only one red bean and no other beans — but I’m still picking from the jar that has 7 red beans and 93 that aren’t red, because 7 is so much more than 1”?!
The Denes-Raj/Epstein study makes me wonder whether the subjects would still have picked the jar with 100 beans (7 red) if, say, the other jar had been announced to contain 6 beans (5 red) . Is there any “tipping point” (any specific number or percentage of red beans versus other beans) at which the subjects finally choose to follow the probabilities instead of going with “more reds”? What if the other jar had been stated to contain only 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 bean — but with ALL beans in that jar stated to be red? Would some subjects still go for the jar with 7 red beans in 100 (because 7 is more than five)? Has anyone tested the possibility that some subjects would actually say: “Yes, I know that I’m guaranteed to win if I pick from a jar that contain only one red bean and no other beans — but I’m still picking from the jar that has 7 red beans and 93 that aren’t red, because 7 is so much more than 1”?!