How is this experiment related to free will at all? Sounds to me like something about sensory/motor latency.
Results like those are what make me question free will (My mind "weighted" my answers in ways I can't control).
To me that shows us how outside forces influence our thoughts. Did I want to buy this garbage bag because it's a good value, has a good design, or because I've heard "DONT GET MAD, GET GLAD!!" 1000 times? Every thought we have is affected by our experiences, and many experiences can be controlled - they call these advertisements.
I find this topic fascinating. I suffer from depression, and my thoughts during a major depressive episode can be the stark opposite from when I feel well (Let's say it's about suicide). How can I truly have "free will" if my decisions are so dependent on external influences?
You don't have actually free will, if by free you mean "uninfluenced by anything".
There's no evidence that such a thing exists, and anyone who claims such a thing invariably appeals to supernatural or hand-wavy explanations.
Note that many thinkers who claim free will exist actually are saying "what most people mean by 'free will' does exist", and usually that means "an agent capable of making choices without outside influence". This idea is compatible with determinism, so these people are called compatibilists.
For most people, "outside influence" means, "at this point in time, only the contents of my brain affect the choice I make" and "no force or agent outside myself is compelling me to make a different choice than the one I'd make otherwise".
It's a word game of course. Even if you try to be extremely precise with your definitions, to avoid this kind of thing, most people won't quite follow.
Compatibilists believe what you believe. They just agree to use the popular, vague definition of free will instead of the strict one you're using.
because you can recognize this as a pattern, make a supposition that this is related to previous conditioning, and retrain yourself at picking numbers randomly to eliminate the previous bias that you yourself recognized as 'problematic' here.
For example, it's common to have the intuition that the choice when picking a number from 1 to 10 is completely unbiased and independent. That would imply a perfectly uniform distribution.
Of course that doesn't match reality, and it raises more questions for the intellectually honest thinker, but most people don't think about it beyond the simple intuition.
Untrained people just don't know, for example, that long streaks of heads and tails are actually quite likely in a sequence of random coin tosses. If they did know the likelihood, and they were tasked with writing down a sequence of random coin tosses, they would probably do a much better job.
If you take this to the limit, a human could learn to compute a pseudorandom generator in their head (at least in theory, although it may be very slow going) or perhaps figure out an effective way to gather entropy from the environment and turn it into a truly random sequence.