Look, for example, at this elegant little experiment. A rat was set in a maze that is T-shaped with a few morsels of food placed on the left or far right side of the enclosure. The dice is rigged, although the positioning of the food is determined: on the left side sixty per cent of the moment, the food was set over the long term. How did the rat respond? It quickly realized that the left side was rewarding. Because of this, it always went to the left, which caused a sixty percent success rate. The rat did not try for perfection. It did not hunt for a Unified Theory of the maze, or attempt to decode the disorder. Rather, it accepted the inherent uncertainty of the reward and learned to settle for the best possible option.Originally Posted by ;
The experiment was then repeated with Yale undergraduates. Contrary to the rat, their brains that were swollen stubbornly searched for the elusive pattern that determined the positioning of the reward. They tried to learn from their forecast errors and made predictions. The problem was that there was nothing whatsoever to forecast: the randomness was actual. Since the pupils refused to settle for a 60 percent success rate, they ended with a 52 percent success rate. Even though most of the students were convinced they made progress towards identifying the underlying algorithm a rat was really outsmarting them.
P64 HOW WE DECIDE
I believe the rat will beat you.