alt Hacker NewsI wouldn't be surprised if there is something to it, but I suspected they didn't use legitimate coin flips (because it seems like a large amount of people can't really flip a coin), and looking at the videos confirms it, at least for the flips done by Bartos:
They're very low RPM and very low time in the air. Nothing I would accept for any decision worth flipping a coin for.
Replies
This was my first objection as well. However, if most people flip coins like that, then the measurements are valid -- the conclusions are about what average people will do, not a perfect mechanical coin flip. Otherwise you're falling in the no true coin flip fallacy.
This makes me feel like, similar to everything else, even science is actually a spectrum. Based on how much insanity to put into the testing.
Even if the testing was as many flips as possible over years and years of automated means, with a flipping machine that varies flipping power and angle, and detecting sub-millimeter wearing on the surface of a coin, and every single coin style/size in existence, of every single wear level possible from all positions and angles, through every different combination of typical earth-based air percentages... What does the result really mean? It doesn't actually come up with a "conclusion", its just an accounting of an exact series of events. You will still never use that into the future, you will still describe the act as having a probability of outcome.
but they did?
here's the video https://youtu.be/-QjgvbvFoQA?si=ZTT1LWWJC8T4LIQZ
That's not tossing a coin, that's barely throwing it in the air.
To me this kills the credibility of the entire study and of the authors.
Sure, there may be something to it, but people will have a very different thing on their mind unless they check the video, which I wouldn't have done without your prompting.
It's unlikely they don't understand how misleading it is.
And somehow I have the intuition a proper coin toss will not exhibit the same properties.