Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Would you read a statistics textbook?

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Ask HN: Would you read a statistics textbook?

#31
post #26
post #17

My personal opinion is that statistics textbooks usually come from a prescriptive perspective, and that makes it challenging for the reader to get visceral intuition for what is actually going on. Any reader would be far better off just visualizing the damn distribution / samples and using reasonable judgement, instead of implicitly assuming a Gaussians distribution and blindly memorizing tests / formulae. Making the…

How do you make 'reasonable judgements'? How do you tell whether someone else made reasonable judgements? How do you judge other people's intuition? Modelling distributions explicitly sounds nice, yes.

Look at the histogram and think about what distribution one could reasonably impute from samples. And what you would set as bounds for "outliers", per your needs. While we're at it, let me also say that it might be useful to specify outlier bounds not just based on the spread in sample values, but the costs/payoffs they imply for your application.

If you are not doing something crazy, most reasonable people would agree with your judgement. Conversely, if you are making non-obvious inferences where reasonable people disagree, you are in murky water and no sophisticated statistical method will save you. Math is not magic; theorems merely recycle (launder) modeling assumptions into results.

Re: Ask HN: Would you read a statistics textbook?

#33
A long time ago, I took a "statistics for engineers" class in order to graduate. I slept through most of the classes. It sucked, and 70 percent of it was just "distribution of the week." It did not help that homework was optional for half of it.

At some point in my professional career I started reading non-fiction books and even bought a used statistics textbook for 10 bucks on abebooks. I didn't end up actually reading it until 12 years later during the COVID lockdown. I ended up shooting for 10 pages a day, 7 days a week. If those 10 pages included review exercises, it would be a long night.

Could just be the right book at the right time, but this one really helped me understand stuff beyond the normal HS math stuff, like RMS-error, calculating correlation, the difference between standard error and standard deviation, the relationship between sample size and standard error, t-tests, and chi-squared. Working as an SRE/release engineer, this stuff really helped me overcome a lot of _bad_ canary data analysis my predecessors had constructed.

That book was the 3rd edition of Statistics by Freedman et al.[1] One thing I want to complement was getting the pedagogy right. Most chapters have strong narrative hooks, several "check your knowledge" problems, review exercises, and post chapter bullet points to assist with spaced repetition. There's even a series of "special" review exercises covering entire sections of the book, ie exams.

For the HN crowd I should also probably note that the book is almost entirely non-bayesian and not intended to prepare readers for further coursework. You will not learn normal phraseology like "IID," "random variable" or "kernel".

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SLB5Q72?lv=shuf&channelId=520&p...

Re: Ask HN: Would you read a statistics textbook?

#37

How would it overlap or differ from 'Statistical Rethinking'? This is widely regarded as the most accessible intro textbook to Bayesian statistics. https://xcelab.net/rm/

+ Krushke’s Doing Bayesian Data Analysis, and for the very basics there is Downey’s Think Bayes. I guess there might be a gap in the literature for a different approach, heck, I’d read it, but there is some very good material already out there.

Re: Ask HN: Would you read a statistics textbook?

#40

How would it overlap or differ from 'Statistical Rethinking'? This is widely regarded as the most accessible intro textbook to Bayesian statistics. https://xcelab.net/rm/

Maybe my expectations were too high given all the online praise, but I've been working through it for the past two weeks and I've been underwhelmed:

- The language is often very vague and imprecise, so it's more difficult than it feels it should be

- Concepts are sometimes introduced "at random" in ways that only really make sense in hindsight. So as you're reading you're left scratching your head as to why something was brought up.

- There are constant philosophical and historical digressions that seem to hold deeper meaning, but maybe once you know the topic already.

- Similarly, constantly talking about people that take issue with the method. People not liking the method is a constant theme (they seem really butthurt about this?). But the craziest part is this all done before you even really understand what the method is!!

- The editor must have placed some strict requirement of saying "Bayesian" at least five times per page.

- No index. Useless table of context. But lots of end-notes you feel compelled to flip to constantly

Overall it feels like a textbook written to impress other statistics professors - and as an outlet for the author to air some frustrations with how people do statistics (which may be completely valid!)

The overall structure and objectives seem solid for the most part. It's just a lot of the details aren't great. The problems (so far) have been good. The examples in the text are fun and compelling, but you have to do your own legwork to actually pick through all the prose and tie the pieces together - to figure how it fits together mathematically. Fortunately AI helps as a tutor

Post reply on HN