[gerard]

Our intuition is that random processes produce high-entropy output. Patterns carry less entropy and therefore offer less convincing evidence that the result is indeed the product of a random process if any alternative explanation or generating function is permitted. It would not be biased to think so, but it would be a misinterpretation of the question to use that as the basis of an answer, and of course people may be biased in their reading of the question.

But to be fair to researchers that's not the bias they are trying to illustrate. There does appear to exist human bias that 'characteristics of the generating process will be represented, “not only globally in the entire sequence, but also locally in each of its parts”.

There are other ways of putting it, or there are related biases if you like, which I would generalise as a belief that mean reversion should be expected in the short term, a notion that the future will balance the past naturally, inevitably and here's the bias: quickly. It arises imho from a misplaced intuition of mean reversion 1) as a process that operates, like a force of nature, rather than being an emergent phenomenon and 2) as a tendency for results to converge to expectation in absolute terms rather than in the mean.