Talk:Cognition August2018/@comment-35453425-20180530154508/@comment-35476160-20180601011138

I think this paper adds a really important aspect  of getting to the "probability" versus just quantity comparisons because of the "unknown" factor in the choices. Especially since the chimps were not deterred to make another "unknown" choice after doing it once and recieving a smaller reward. To me that feels a lot more like taking into account a probability judgement in a more realistic sense, lacking some information but using past experiences. So, I guess, in your lottery machine example there are several machines, but only two are availabe at any given time. When A and B are available I've had more luck from B in the past. Maybe next time B and C are available but I don't know how reliable C is, I might stick with B. or if A and C are available but A has been "unlucky" i'll go with C. Its not exactly the same (because in this example you still know what some of your options are NOT; I'm not the best at coming up with examples off the top of my head :P - but maybe that makes sense?), but thats sort of what I thought about when trying to expand your example from before. Anyways, I just like the aspect of including an "unknown" part in the judgement because it feels like more of a probability judgement without the possiblity of a straight up quantity or relative quantity judgement.

It also seems to me like more confidence in cardilnatlity here, since they rarely chose the unknown in the higher range sessions. Cool stuff!