I have a feeling that Bayes is unintuitive specifically because people pick extreme or otherwise bad examples to explain it. As you mention, the way we calculat

I have a feeling that Bayes is unintuitive specifically because people pick extreme or otherwise bad examples to explain it. As you mention, the way we calculate odds is oddly (pardon the pun) similar to Bayes. Here is an African Safari example. The probability of an individual hunter being attacked by a lion P(L|H) (assuming any lion who tracks down a hunter will also attack him) equals to the conditional probability of the hunter tracking down a lion P(H|L) (which is a measure of how good the hunter is at finding lions assuming there are lions) times the general probability of encountering a lion in the bush P(L) divided by the general probability of encountering another hunter like himself in the bush P(H). Hence why you can get away with hunting lions alone only if you're very bad at finding lions or if there are no lions.