If this sense of ownership is based on a heuristic meant to detect cheaters or suspicious situations… okay, I can buy that. But why would someone who knows all of the probabilities involved refuse to admit that cutting the deck doesn’t matter? Pride? … People seemed somewhat attached to the anti-cheating heuristic.
The System 1 suspicion-detector would be less effective if System 2 could override it, since System 2 can be manipulated.
(Another possibility may be loss aversion, making any change unattractive that guarantees a different outcome without changing the expected value. (I see hugh already mentioned this.) A third, seemingly less likely, possibility is intuitive ‘belief’ in the agency of the cards, which is somehow being undesirably thwarted by changing the ritual.)
I really don’t know. Unusual mental architecture, like high reflectivity or ‘stronger’ deliberative relative to non-deliberative motivation? Low paranoia? High trust in logical argument?
The System 1 suspicion-detector would be less effective if System 2 could override it, since System 2 can be manipulated.
(Another possibility may be loss aversion, making any change unattractive that guarantees a different outcome without changing the expected value. (I see hugh already mentioned this.) A third, seemingly less likely, possibility is intuitive ‘belief’ in the agency of the cards, which is somehow being undesirably thwarted by changing the ritual.)
Why can I override mine? What makes me different from my friends? The answer isn’t knowledge of math or probabilities.
I really don’t know. Unusual mental architecture, like high reflectivity or ‘stronger’ deliberative relative to non-deliberative motivation? Low paranoia? High trust in logical argument?