5 ms·

Frequentist: Here's a couple formulas that kind of make sense. Plug in your data and go. Bayesian: Here's Bayes' theorem, a single formula that makes perfect s

Frequentist: Here's a couple formulas that kind of make sense. Plug in your data and go. Bayesian: Here's Bayes' theorem, a single formula that makes perfect sense! See, it's simpler, right? What, you want to use it? Something something beta distribution something something Markov chain Monte Carlo something something - okay, got it? Good luck teaching that to undergrads. In the real world, intro stats classes are taken mostly by people with little math background, no programming background, little interest in statistics, and little innate talent for any of those things. With the frequentist approach, at least they have a fucking chance.

asgard1024 11y ago
I don't know about you, but I found Bayesian approach much more intuitive than frequentist one. The only reason to use frequentist approach is to have a procedure that you can do with pencil and paper on real problems (and unlike Bayesian methods only under some often weird assumptions). But with computers and statistical packages, that need is going away.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
I agree that frequentist methods are more amenable to teaching students to apply rote formulas that they do not understand. I do not agree that this is a feature. Quite the contrary.
- jerven 11y ago
  I think it is easier to do frequest statistics "ok", then to asses whether your priors are going to be any good. Especially when looking at systems we don't really understand very well.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- streptomycin 11y ago
  Whether it's a feature or not is subjective. And I think I mostly agree with you - it's probably bad that we're encouraging the application of bad statistics. But the alternative isn't just replacing bad with good, it'd be more like telling ~98% of the science majors in the country, "hey, you're too dumb to do real statistics, so please just stop trying". I can't see that realistically happening.

asgard1024 11y ago

I don't know about you, but I found Bayesian approach much more intuitive than frequentist one. The only reason to use frequentist approach is to have a procedure that you can do with pencil and paper on real problems (and unlike Bayesian methods only under some often weird assumptions). But with computers and statistical packages, that need is going away.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

I agree that frequentist methods are more amenable to teaching students to apply rote formulas that they do not understand. I do not agree that this is a feature. Quite the contrary.

jerven 11y ago
I think it is easier to do frequest statistics "ok", then to asses whether your priors are going to be any good. Especially when looking at systems we don't really understand very well.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
streptomycin 11y ago
Whether it's a feature or not is subjective. And I think I mostly agree with you - it's probably bad that we're encouraging the application of bad statistics. But the alternative isn't just replacing bad with good, it'd be more like telling ~98% of the science majors in the country, "hey, you're too dumb to do real statistics, so please just stop trying". I can't see that realistically happening.