7 ms·

I would seriously doubt this is the reason. If you want to learn applied Bayesian stats, you go to a machine learning or game theory conference or read research

by mayank 16y ago

I would seriously doubt this is the reason. If you want to learn applied Bayesian stats, you go to a machine learning or game theory conference or read research papers. There are plenty of Chinese citizens doing both, including low-level university students, so this really can't be the reason. I would think that the reason has something to do with objectionable content inside this specific book, perhaps in an example problem as another commenter noted. Bayesian stats have been around for a very long time, and it's senseless to try to block textbook-level access to it, unless you're really trying to block just the textbook itself.

Symmetry 16y ago
On the other hand, nothing says that the China censorship mechanism has to be consistent, in fact I'd almost expect them to be arbitrary and capricious. It might be that whatever individual decided to ban this book would also have wanted to ban other the things you mention if they had been aware of them.
- mayank 16y ago
  If they try to ban Chinese citizens from international conferences and journals in anything related to Bayesian methods, I can tell you firsthand that a lot of math/CS/ML/AI conferences will shrivel up quite a bit. They won't die, but it'll be like the Cold War, where Russian mathematicians made advances that were insulated from the west for many years, and vice versa. A net loss for everyone, especially in a topic as fundamental as Bayesian methods.
  - Symmetry 16y ago
    You misunderstand, I'm very much not saying that there is or will be a general policy of banning things related to Bayesian methods. Rather, thats its quite possible one mid-level bureaucrat thought that Bayesian methods were unacceptable in this one instance. Maybe he (I think "he" is a safe assumption here) was confused and really thought that this sort of math was subversive. Maybe he was worried that he hadn't banned enough things this month and his supperiors would think he was lazy. Maybe the publisher failed to pay the customary bribe. In any of these cases, though, the official reason for the ban might very well be that "Bayesian Methods are subversive".
    - mayank 16y ago
      Ah, point taken.
    - nkurz 16y ago
      Seeing as this is a post on Bayesian statistics in China, I must ask: why are you sufficiently confident to assert that "he" is a safe assumption? Because it's political, because it's mathematical, because it's irrational, or because it's China?
      - Symmetry 16y ago
        Reviewing the evidence a bit more, it seems I shouldn't be. I imagined the gender ratio in the CCP was worse than what evidence I've been able to dig up suggests it is.
niels_olson 16y ago
I apparently double-posted my comment, and deleted the duplicate, your parent, before your post was committed. Sorry about that. I also modified the other version, which, in some sort of karmic reaction, is now dead. Let me 1. Repost the modified dead parent: > Probably because they're using Bayesian filters on various security fronts: internal threat analysis, the great firewall, whatever side projects some bureaucrat is using to pad his income. >edit: This is a problem with classification/censorship schemes: the censors/classifiers are all stove-piped, so their decisions come with a high degree of variability. The censor may well have been unaware that this is a whole field of work, or, is aware, but isn't responsible for the censoring decisions about all other related titles. 2. point to Feynman's accounts of censorship at Los Alamos as just how dense censors are: http://goo.gl/nfxqp http://goo.gl/nfxqp Ultimately, I think you're right, this doesn't make sense, except in some colloquial circumstance that is already water under the bridge for the actors.
alextp 16y ago
Actually, one of the best ways to learn applied bayesian stats, used by most machine learning researchers I've asked about this, is to read Gelman's books on bayesian data analysis and hierarchical/multilevel modeling.

by mayank 16y ago

Symmetry 16y ago

On the other hand, nothing says that the China censorship mechanism has to be consistent, in fact I'd almost expect them to be arbitrary and capricious. It might be that whatever individual decided to ban this book would also have wanted to ban other the things you mention if they had been aware of them.

mayank 16y ago
If they try to ban Chinese citizens from international conferences and journals in anything related to Bayesian methods, I can tell you firsthand that a lot of math/CS/ML/AI conferences will shrivel up quite a bit. They won't die, but it'll be like the Cold War, where Russian mathematicians made advances that were insulated from the west for many years, and vice versa. A net loss for everyone, especially in a topic as fundamental as Bayesian methods.
- Symmetry 16y ago
  You misunderstand, I'm very much not saying that there is or will be a general policy of banning things related to Bayesian methods. Rather, thats its quite possible one mid-level bureaucrat thought that Bayesian methods were unacceptable in this one instance. Maybe he (I think "he" is a safe assumption here) was confused and really thought that this sort of math was subversive. Maybe he was worried that he hadn't banned enough things this month and his supperiors would think he was lazy. Maybe the publisher failed to pay the customary bribe. In any of these cases, though, the official reason for the ban might very well be that "Bayesian Methods are subversive".
  - mayank 16y ago
    Ah, point taken.
  - nkurz 16y ago
    Seeing as this is a post on Bayesian statistics in China, I must ask: why are you sufficiently confident to assert that "he" is a safe assumption? Because it's political, because it's mathematical, because it's irrational, or because it's China?
    - Symmetry 16y ago
      Reviewing the evidence a bit more, it seems I shouldn't be. I imagined the gender ratio in the CCP was worse than what evidence I've been able to dig up suggests it is.

niels_olson 16y ago

I apparently double-posted my comment, and deleted the duplicate, your parent, before your post was committed. Sorry about that. I also modified the other version, which, in some sort of karmic reaction, is now dead. Let me 1. Repost the modified dead parent: > Probably because they're using Bayesian filters on various security fronts: internal threat analysis, the great firewall, whatever side projects some bureaucrat is using to pad his income. >edit: This is a problem with classification/censorship schemes: the censors/classifiers are all stove-piped, so their decisions come with a high degree of variability. The censor may well have been unaware that this is a whole field of work, or, is aware, but isn't responsible for the censoring decisions about all other related titles. 2. point to Feynman's accounts of censorship at Los Alamos as just how dense censors are: http://goo.gl/nfxqp http://goo.gl/nfxqp Ultimately, I think you're right, this doesn't make sense, except in some colloquial circumstance that is already water under the bridge for the actors.

alextp 16y ago

Actually, one of the best ways to learn applied bayesian stats, used by most machine learning researchers I've asked about this, is to read Gelman's books on bayesian data analysis and hierarchical/multilevel modeling.