<p>A nice psychology article (media article) that provides answers to your question can be found at <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-blame-game/201504/the-surprising-psychology-rock-paper-scissors" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. I will try to summarize briefly based on this article.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How close to uniformly randomness can we expect each person to act?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The short answer is no. As explained in the article, on the first round of Rock-Paper-Scissors it is less likely that a randomly selected person will choose paper over scissors or rock. Moreover, as two people play many rounds of Rock-Paper-Scissors together, they tend to not play randomly but adjust their selections based on whether they won or lost. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Will this be a stationary distribution or it will change over the time if there will be a lot of trials?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are many definitions of stationary, but a <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">paper</a> mentioned in the above article found cyclical behavior which would violate some of the definitions of stationary. However, this might still fit into some definitions of stationarity. </p>

<p>While I'm unaware of a particular article which addresses the question of wide-sense stationary in this game, I would be surprised if this were found in Rock-Paper-Scissors played between humans. There is an interplay of affective (emotional) and rational decision making that tends to be influenced by the actions of human opponents. </p>

<p>I would be less surprised if this were found when a human plays a computer, especially if they knew the computer was playing completely randomly. People play different strategies in games played Human vs. Human as opposed to Human vs. Computer (e.g. the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805551" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ultimatum Game</a>)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-09T00:09:36.483Z
2018-05-09T00:09:36.483Z
Stat_Programmer
<p>Let's imagine an experiment. We will tell N normal people that they need to act randomly in the Rock–paper–scissors game (in this game Game Optimal Strategy is to choose an action with uniform probability 1/3). 
Two question:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>How close to uniformly randomness can we expect each person to act? </p></li>
<li><p>More important question. Will this be a stationary distribution or it will change over the time if there will be a lot of trials?</p></li>
</ul>

<p><em>(People in the experiment can't use any kind of external random generators</em>).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T15:34:01.990Z
Anecdotal evidence: http://www.loper-os.org/bad-at-entropy/manmach.html
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T20:44:25.063Z
It's even really hard, to some level of precision impossible, to make machines behave at random. Also the optimal strategy is only to use uniform priors if you presume you cannot predict anything of your opponent.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-17T17:58:14.623Z
Depends on your definition of random @BryanKrause.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-17T18:14:09.057Z
@Chris https://xkcd.com/221/
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-23T19:23:39.893Z
People are notoriously bad at being random, especially when asked to do so. I would imagine a google search would be a great starting point, as this is long-established fact.
theMayer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-23T19:30:10.940Z
People individually - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jblocki/HumanRandomness.htm
theMayer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-23T19:30:42.327Z
Collectively... look at hypotheses as to the movements of the stock market. There is considerable debate on that subject.
theMayer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-09T01:52:31.910Z
@rmayer06 that would make for a great answer
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-09T01:56:13.803Z
I've marked this as duplicate as I think they're essentially asking the same question (albeit one uses rock paper scissors and the original uses number sequences); but I think that the intent is the same. If you disagree, let me know.
Jeromy Anglim
<cognitive-psychology><cognitive-modeling><statistics><psychology>
Can people act randomly?
Brans Ds
# Can people act randomly?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-16)

Let's imagine an experiment. We will tell N normal people that they need to act randomly in the Rock–paper–scissors game (in this game Game Optimal Strategy is to choose an action with uniform probability 1/3).
Two question:

* How close to uniformly randomness can we expect each person to act?
* More important question. Will this be a stationary distribution or it will change over the time if there will be a lot of trials?

*(People in the experiment can't use any kind of external random generators*).

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, cognitive-modeling, statistics, psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Anecdotal evidence: http://www.loper-os.org/bad-at-entropy/manmach.html  
> **username_2**: It's even really hard, to some level of precision impossible, to make machines behave at random. Also the optimal strategy is only to use uniform priors if you presume you cannot predict anything of your opponent.  
> **username_3**: Depends on your definition of random @BryanKrause.  
> **username_2**: @Chris https://xkcd.com/221/  
> **username_4**: People are notoriously bad at being random, especially when asked to do so. I would imagine a google search would be a great starting point, as this is long-established fact.  
> **username_4**: People individually - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jblocki/HumanRandomness.htm  
> **username_4**: Collectively... look at hypotheses as to the movements of the stock market. There is considerable debate on that subject.  
> **username_1**: @rmayer06 that would make for a great answer  
> **username_5**: I've marked this as duplicate as I think they're essentially asking the same question (albeit one uses rock paper scissors and the original uses number sequences); but I think that the intent is the same. If you disagree, let me know.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-05-09. Score: 1

A nice psychology article (media article) that provides answers to your question can be found at [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-blame-game/201504/the-surprising-psychology-rock-paper-scissors). I will try to summarize briefly based on this article.

> How close to uniformly randomness can we expect each person to act?

The short answer is no. As explained in the article, on the first round of Rock-Paper-Scissors it is less likely that a randomly selected person will choose paper over scissors or rock. Moreover, as two people play many rounds of Rock-Paper-Scissors together, they tend to not play randomly but adjust their selections based on whether they won or lost.

> Will this be a stationary distribution or it will change over the time if there will be a lot of trials?

There are many definitions of stationary, but a [paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199.pdf) mentioned in the above article found cyclical behavior which would violate some of the definitions of stationary. However, this might still fit into some definitions of stationarity.

While I'm unaware of a particular article which addresses the question of wide-sense stationary in this game, I would be surprised if this were found in Rock-Paper-Scissors played between humans. There is an interplay of affective (emotional) and rational decision making that tends to be influenced by the actions of human opponents.

I would be less surprised if this were found when a human plays a computer, especially if they knew the computer was playing completely randomly. People play different strategies in games played Human vs. Human as opposed to Human vs. Computer (e.g. the [Ultimatum Game](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805551))


---

