4 ms·

The key is to come up with a well-formulated question, such as "I wonder if I can predict stock trends." Then in doing so, you'll search the web and come acros

by physcab 17y ago

The key is to come up with a well-formulated question, such as "I wonder if I can predict stock trends." Then in doing so, you'll search the web and come across predictive modeling, which will lead to machine learning techniques, which will lead to good resources. Within those machine learning sources, search for chapters on prediction and classification, and you'll come across regression techniques, support vector machines, relevance vector machines, etc. Then you'll wonder, "ok, how do I actually solve this problem" so you may search for "SVM implementations" and find Steve Gunn's for Matlab for example. Then after much codebanging, you'll realize that inorder to solve this problem, you need a good dataset, so you go to Yahoo finance and see if you can download some data for IBM. This is usually the process one needs to follow, albeit with some intermediate steps switched out for others here and there.

discojesus 17y ago
it seems like if he did that, he'd be biting off WAY more than he can chew at the present time. If you want to learn statistics, it's probably better to start at the beginning (_Cartoon Guide to Statistics_, O'Reilly's new _Head First Statistics_, or Huff's _How to Lie With Statistics_) than to leap headlong into a huge, mostly intractable problem and pagefault in knowledge at each point you come across something you don't know how to do.
- physcab 17y ago
  I agree, but at the same time, you only learn by doing. In my experience, even when you dive in way over your head, you tend to pick up the information rather quickly. I took a machine learning class with no statistics background and after a few weeks of floundering and learning terminology I was fine. The benefit of forming a problem first gives you an ultimate goal of which to work towards. Don't tell Google that it's slogan ("Organize the world's information") is biting off more than it could chew.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    I agree with you, starting with a problem can help provide motivation, structure, and focus and all of those can help keep you learning quickly. Still, there is a place for an introductory book if you are truly coming from minimal knowledge of the subject.
  - discojesus 17y ago
    I agree, but at the same time, you only learn by doing. This is true, but I think in the original poster's case it could be much more easily and reliably be accomplished by continually giving him problems that are within (or more ideally, just outside) his circle of competence, rather than a problem like "predict stock prices" which isn't in any human being's circle of competence. Moreover, with the latter problem, he'll get virtually no feedback as to whether his answer was correct, because a correct answer for "use statistics to predict stock prices" doesn't exist. Odds are that if he follows that path he'll quit before making any progress, or at the least he won't be able to close the feedback loop that is so vital to gaining expertise. I think that if he's starting from ground zero and wanting to learn statistics, he'd be much better served by sitting down with The Cartoon Guide to Statistics and a deck of cards and set of dice first. He can work his way up to conquering the stock market :) Don't tell Google that it's slogan ("Organize the world's information") is biting off more than it could chew. I think that's apples and oranges - he's trying to learn statistics, not trying to convince potential clients or investors that he's already an expert. I don't think it would be harmful at all for him to have a lofty, far-out goal like "predict stock prices" to aim toward, but I do think that if he starts out trying to learn statistics by typing "statistical stock prediction methods" into Google, he will burn out rather quickly. Pagefaulting in knowledge when you need it is probably optimal for something where you just want to make sure your knowledge is passable, but if he wants to truly know his domain, he's gotta get out the marbles and urns. :)
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    "Don't tell Google that it's slogan ("Organize the world's information") is biting off more than it could chew." They came up with that slogan well after they were already experts in search, and probably after Google had been written and they'd formed a company. To hear Larry tell it, Google started with the question of "What if we could download all of the web and just keep all the links?" And then Terry Winograd encouraged them, and they realized that the link structure of the web was a lot like the citation graph of academic publications. And then they realized they could build a kick-ass search engine by using that to rank page relevance. And then when nobody would license it, they formed a company. The way to build massive world-changing systems isn't to start with massive world-changing ideas. It's to start with interesting, challenging, but tractable problems, and then see where they lead you.
HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
No, that's how to figure out if he can predict stock trends. He wants to learn statistics, not necessarily an application of statistics. I see what you're getting at, but before one can ask such a question, one must know if the answer will involve statistical theory and that's a big jump. Learn the basics first, then look for applications lest you can't see the forest for the trees. The other problem with this approach is that while you may get depth, there is very little breadth. I find that when learning something for the first time, I want to go wide and shallow. Then once I have a basic understanding I can figure out where I want to learn deeper. OTOH, maybe you just learn things differently from me! I just gave my friend (a PhD in Operations Research) his basic Statistical Theory book back. I also wanted to get a better understanding of statistics, but that stuff was putting me to sleep too easily :-(
- physcab 17y ago
  Right. Everyone has different learning styles. The problem with learning just basic theory is that you get caught up in minute details. That's why I always recommend people to start with a focused problem, then in the process of trying to answer that problem, you become knowledgeable about all the pieces of the puzzle. The key is to make the discipline of statistics interesting to YOU!

by physcab 17y ago

discojesus 17y ago

it seems like if he did that, he'd be biting off WAY more than he can chew at the present time. If you want to learn statistics, it's probably better to start at the beginning (_Cartoon Guide to Statistics_, O'Reilly's new _Head First Statistics_, or Huff's _How to Lie With Statistics_) than to leap headlong into a huge, mostly intractable problem and pagefault in knowledge at each point you come across something you don't know how to do.

physcab 17y ago
I agree, but at the same time, you only learn by doing. In my experience, even when you dive in way over your head, you tend to pick up the information rather quickly. I took a machine learning class with no statistics background and after a few weeks of floundering and learning terminology I was fine. The benefit of forming a problem first gives you an ultimate goal of which to work towards. Don't tell Google that it's slogan ("Organize the world's information") is biting off more than it could chew.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  I agree with you, starting with a problem can help provide motivation, structure, and focus and all of those can help keep you learning quickly. Still, there is a place for an introductory book if you are truly coming from minimal knowledge of the subject.
- discojesus 17y ago
  I agree, but at the same time, you only learn by doing. This is true, but I think in the original poster's case it could be much more easily and reliably be accomplished by continually giving him problems that are within (or more ideally, just outside) his circle of competence, rather than a problem like "predict stock prices" which isn't in any human being's circle of competence. Moreover, with the latter problem, he'll get virtually no feedback as to whether his answer was correct, because a correct answer for "use statistics to predict stock prices" doesn't exist. Odds are that if he follows that path he'll quit before making any progress, or at the least he won't be able to close the feedback loop that is so vital to gaining expertise. I think that if he's starting from ground zero and wanting to learn statistics, he'd be much better served by sitting down with The Cartoon Guide to Statistics and a deck of cards and set of dice first. He can work his way up to conquering the stock market :) Don't tell Google that it's slogan ("Organize the world's information") is biting off more than it could chew. I think that's apples and oranges - he's trying to learn statistics, not trying to convince potential clients or investors that he's already an expert. I don't think it would be harmful at all for him to have a lofty, far-out goal like "predict stock prices" to aim toward, but I do think that if he starts out trying to learn statistics by typing "statistical stock prediction methods" into Google, he will burn out rather quickly. Pagefaulting in knowledge when you need it is probably optimal for something where you just want to make sure your knowledge is passable, but if he wants to truly know his domain, he's gotta get out the marbles and urns. :)
- nostrademons 17y ago
  "Don't tell Google that it's slogan ("Organize the world's information") is biting off more than it could chew." They came up with that slogan well after they were already experts in search, and probably after Google had been written and they'd formed a company. To hear Larry tell it, Google started with the question of "What if we could download all of the web and just keep all the links?" And then Terry Winograd encouraged them, and they realized that the link structure of the web was a lot like the citation graph of academic publications. And then they realized they could build a kick-ass search engine by using that to rank page relevance. And then when nobody would license it, they formed a company. The way to build massive world-changing systems isn't to start with massive world-changing ideas. It's to start with interesting, challenging, but tractable problems, and then see where they lead you.

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago

No, that's how to figure out if he can predict stock trends. He wants to learn statistics, not necessarily an application of statistics. I see what you're getting at, but before one can ask such a question, one must know if the answer will involve statistical theory and that's a big jump. Learn the basics first, then look for applications lest you can't see the forest for the trees. The other problem with this approach is that while you may get depth, there is very little breadth. I find that when learning something for the first time, I want to go wide and shallow. Then once I have a basic understanding I can figure out where I want to learn deeper. OTOH, maybe you just learn things differently from me! I just gave my friend (a PhD in Operations Research) his basic Statistical Theory book back. I also wanted to get a better understanding of statistics, but that stuff was putting me to sleep too easily :-(

physcab 17y ago
Right. Everyone has different learning styles. The problem with learning just basic theory is that you get caught up in minute details. That's why I always recommend people to start with a focused problem, then in the process of trying to answer that problem, you become knowledgeable about all the pieces of the puzzle. The key is to make the discipline of statistics interesting to YOU!