When asked to pick a number between 1 and 100, most people say 37. But what makes this seemingly unremarkable digit the go-to choice for a ‘random’ selection? Is it mere coincidence, or is there a deeper psychological or mathematical significance behind it? This conundrum has been the subject of both casual observation and more formal inquiry, with findings that reveal a fascinating interplay between human psychology and number theory.
For years, the number 37 has been known within certain circles as “the least random number,” a moniker that hints at its popularity when individuals are prompted to choose a number at random. This intriguing phenomenon is more than just an anecdote; it’s been consistently observed in group polls, elevating 37 to the status of the most common answer given in such contexts. But why does this number, out of all possible choices, resonate with so many as the epitome of randomness?
Derek Muller and his Veritasium team delved into this captivating phenomenon in their video titled “Why is this number everywhere?” In their quest to demystify the enigma surrounding the number 37, Veritasium conducted a survey involving 200,000 individuals. Participants were tasked with selecting a random number, and the results revealed that 7, 73, 77, and 37 were among the most frequently chosen digits.
After selecting their preferred numbers, participants were prompted to choose the number they believed would be the least popular. Excluding extreme values and 50 for its central position, the contenders for the least-selected number were 73 and 37, nearly neck and neck. Contrary to expectations, the least-selected numbers were 90, followed by 30, 40, 70, 80, and 60.
One rationale behind the preference for 37 lies in its status as a prime number. Muller suggests that primes are perceived as inherently random, as they are less prevalent in everyday contexts. Emily Zhang, the director of the show, recalled her childhood experience with a book that explored numbers up to a hundred, each with accompanying stories. However, 37 was notably absent from any significant associations.
“So for 26, that’s how many letters in the alphabet,” Zhang explained. “Or for 30, they give the days of September. Or for 52, that’s how many cards are in a deck.” Yet, unlike these examples, 37 lacks such commonplace associations, contributing to its perceived randomness.
At a more profound level, the prevalence of the number 37 appears to align with our decision-making tendencies when confronted with numerous options. Employing intricate mathematical reasoning, Muller illustrates that when individuals face a multitude of choices, they tend to evaluate and discard approximately 37% of them to gain an understanding of the available options. Subsequently, they opt for the first choice that surpasses all previously examined alternatives.
To elucidate this concept, Muller employed the analogy of how individuals select partners to illustrate the underlying mechanism at work.
“So if you want to get married, say, in 10 years, then spend the first 3.7 years seeing what’s out there and then select the next person who’s better than anyone you’ve seen,” suggests Muller.
The video adeptly exposes individuals’ blind spots when attempting to achieve randomness. It parallels the scenario of parents selecting what they perceive as a unique baby name, only to realize on the first day of kindergarten that others had the same “unique” idea.
“We can argue special coincidences for many numbers, but we need to finally address the elephant in the room,” Muller concludes. “The sheer amount of brain power 37 secretly takes up in our collective minds. It’s humanity’s go-to random number, one of our most prominent prime numbers, and most of all, our ideal number for making decisions. Maybe that’s why we’re inclined to it naturally. It feels right to us as where to settle and what to pick.”
Relevant articles:
– when people are asked to pick a “random number between 1 and 100,” the most common answer is 37
– Pick a random number between 100. You probably chose 37, and there’s a big reason for that.