91–100 of 138 posts
Anyone looking to apply and compare frequentist and bayesian methods within a unified GUI (which is essentially an elegant wrapper to R and selected/custom statistical packages), should check out JASP developed by the University of Amsterdam [0]. It's free to use, and the graphs + captions generated during each step are publication quality right out of the box. Using it truly feels like a 'fresh way' to do statistics…
What's often missing from these introductions is when statistics will not work; and what it even means when it "works". The amount of data needed to tell between two normal is about 30 data points -- between two power-law distributions, >trillion. (And this basically scuppers the central limit theorem, on which a lot of cargo-cult stats is justified). Stats, imv, should be taught simulation-first: code up your hypoth…
I don't agree with this as a statement of fact (except in the obvious case of two power-law distributions with extremely close parameters). Supposing it was true, that would mean that you would almost never have to actually worry about the parameter, because unless your dataset is that large one power law is about as good as any other for describing your data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difficulty of teaching statistics is that the maths you need to prove things are right and gain an intuitive understanding of the methods are far more advanced than what is presented in a basic stats course. Gosset came up with the t-test and proved to the world it made sense, yet we teach students to apply it in a black box way without a fundamental understanding of why it's right. That's not great pedagogy. IMO…
Maximum likelihood (which underpins many frequentist methods) basically amounts to Bayesian statistics with a uniform prior on your parameters. And the "shape" of your prior actually depends on the chosen parametrization, so in principle you can account for non-flat priors as well.
Generative models, (implemented in e.g. Stan, PyMC, Pyro, Turing, etc.) split models from inference. So one can switch from maximum likelihood to variational inference or MCMC quite easily.
Generative models, beginning from regression, make a lot more sense to students and yield much more robust inference. Most people I know who publish research articles on a frequent basis do not know p-values are not a measure of effect sizes. This demonstrates current education has failed.
As much as I appreciate and love all pedagogical endeavours in the field, especially in the form of open texts, I really, really, really dislike this overall approach to teaching introductory statistics. I'm hoping to see, over time, a shift away from ad-hoc null hypothesis testing in favour of linear models (yes, in introductory courses, from the start-- see link below) and Bayesian-by-default approaches. https://li…
> I'm hoping to see, over time, a shift away from ad-hoc null hypothesis testing in favour of linear models (yes, in introductory courses, from the start-- see link below) and Bayesian-by-default approaches. Is there anything where I can start today, as a guinea pig? My statistics education is basically zero.
Anyone looking to apply and compare frequentist and bayesian methods within a unified GUI (which is essentially an elegant wrapper to R and selected/custom statistical packages), should check out JASP developed by the University of Amsterdam [0]. It's free to use, and the graphs + captions generated during each step are publication quality right out of the box. Using it truly feels like a 'fresh way' to do statistics…
What's often missing from these introductions is when statistics will not work; and what it even means when it "works". The amount of data needed to tell between two normal is about 30 data points -- between two power-law distributions, >trillion. (And this basically scuppers the central limit theorem, on which a lot of cargo-cult stats is justified). Stats, imv, should be taught simulation-first: code up your hypoth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am partway through McElreath's "Statistical Rethinking" and I fully agree with this.
That's a great textbook!