You can train to be a deck or engineering officer, and I chose deck officer, which means you start out at the bottom rung as a deckhand.
In the BBDD version, the intact somatic marker appears not to fully guide participants to avoid deck B (bad long-term outcome) and choose deck D (good long-term outcome).
Participants preferred to choose deck C is not due to the good final-outcome, but due to the high-frequency gain and standoff (rather than deck A) in IGT.
If they choose deck 2, say that you are going to count this deck with the help of the first card of deck 1 (which will be 8).
If they choose deck 1, reveal the 1st card of that deck (which will be 8 and act like you didn't know that it was 8) and tell them that you are counting that number of cards on deck 2 and split the deck after the 8th card.
In the memory evaluation, the participants correctly recalled that they chose decks A and B more frequently than they chose decks C and D in both versions.
Meanwhile, if participants are insensitive to long-term outcome they will choose decks A and B as often as (or more often than) they choose decks C and D, particularly during stage 2.
That is, participants choose decks with high-frequency gains more frequently than those with low-frequency gains.
The absence of a crossover or lack of learning curve indicates that gain-loss frequency was dominant over EV when subjects were choosing decks.
