Same here, though I don't have any years of experience working as a statistician.
I did have a job where I had to implement a bunch of cognition tests for scientific studies. Initially I worked purely off the research papers describing how the some of the tests work - apparently by presenting a series of random numbers.
After I had the first few up and running, the feedback from the researchers was that my random numbers weren't random enough. "Weird", I thought... I had seeds for their sessions so I could reproduce the sequences they'd seen and they looked pretty random to me.
In the end it turned out my sequences were "too random", they didn't like any number being repeated, having more than 3 instances of the same number within any 6-digit sequence, and a few other "tweaks". Turns out actual randomness is confusing even for some very experienced and well trained people!
I did have a job where I had to implement a bunch of cognition tests for scientific studies. Initially I worked purely off the research papers describing how the some of the tests work - apparently by presenting a series of random numbers.
After I had the first few up and running, the feedback from the researchers was that my random numbers weren't random enough. "Weird", I thought... I had seeds for their sessions so I could reproduce the sequences they'd seen and they looked pretty random to me.
In the end it turned out my sequences were "too random", they didn't like any number being repeated, having more than 3 instances of the same number within any 6-digit sequence, and a few other "tweaks". Turns out actual randomness is confusing even for some very experienced and well trained people!