I have always visualized probability and conditional probabilities in terms of Venn diagrams, it is easier to understand stuff this way. I think this is _the_ best way to teach probability to a beginner. What do you think ?!
More data is needed.
11–15 of 15 posts
I have always visualized probability and conditional probabilities in terms of Venn diagrams, it is easier to understand stuff this way. I think this is _the_ best way to teach probability to a beginner. What do you think ?!
More data is needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, for a majority of people, it would be an easier way to study probability. Visualization makes things much more understandable than algebraic formula derivation.
Visualization makes things much more understandable Does it? Are you http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ ?
One more thing I would like to add is that everyone has a biased opinion of things based on their perception of the world and that's why I think there should be debates. Generalizing from examples and experiences is a natural method developed during evolution.
If a kid touches a hot plate and experiences pain, I think it is perfectly valid that it should generalize that to all other hot plates. :)
I have always visualized probability and conditional probabilities in terms of Venn diagrams, it is easier to understand stuff this way. I think this is _the_ best way to teach probability to a beginner. What do you think ?!
Considering the universe of beginners (B), and the subset who are visual thinkers (V), then unless |V|/|B| >= 0.5, then no. More data is needed.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_learning 20% of people are auditory learners.
Since the only remaining group is visual learners, 65% of people must be visual learners.
I have always visualized probability and conditional probabilities in terms of Venn diagrams, it is easier to understand stuff this way. I think this is _the_ best way to teach probability to a beginner. What do you think ?!
I am reminded of something I read in Isaac Asimov's book on astronomy, where he talked about his great idea for how to visualize the size of distant objects and how lamentable it was that people don't use his obviously superior method. I stared at the pages unable to comprehend how he thought the size of a penny held a mile away was easier to visualise than the alternative. Likewise Eliezer's "Intuitive" explanation…