
Visualizing Bayes' theorem - screwperman
http://blog.oscarbonilla.com/2009/05/visualizing-bayes-theorem/
======
sachmanb
This is a very well done presentation - I am genuinely impressed. We could use
more of these types of explanations. The more people who understand, the more
help we have.

------
vinutheraj
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 ?!

~~~
jodrellblank
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 of Bayesianity - I've read through
it twice (lightly) and it's thoroughly not intuitive. I'd need to study it not
just read it.

Presumably there is some distance from my current mental state vector to any
with a comfortable grasp of Bayesian probability, and some explanations will
take a quick route and some a less direct one. Hence, I think there are
different 'best' explanations for different people depending on what they
already know, what they want to know and what they want to touch upon along
the way.

I'm skeptical that there is one "_the_ best way" to teach probability, or
anything else.

~~~
visitor4rmindia
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.

~~~
jodrellblank
_Visualization makes things much more understandable_

Does it? Are you <http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/> ?

~~~
vinutheraj
Yea maybe I am bit biased about my opinion because I understood probability
easier using visual examples, but people who I have interacted with mostly
also understand things easier in the visual form. So I think it maybe _the_
best method to teach probability because it will reach out to a majority of
people, ofcourse, there might be people who might understand it better if
explained in a different way, but that maybe a minority, so all the different
methods can be tried out in school.

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. :)

------
troystribling
I think of it as the joint variable event space relative to (or normalized by)
the condition variable event space. In a few words what is shown in the
article diagrams.

------
epe
An explanation similar to this was what made Bayes' theorem really click for
me when I took probability. Thanks Prof. Terpstra!

[http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/normann/statistics/faculty/te...](http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/normann/statistics/faculty/terpstra/index.html)

------
sketerpot
I don't actually remember the formula for Bayes' theorem. I just visualize it
as shown in this article, and write down equations from there. For me, anyway,
that is actually a more reliable way of working.

------
zackattack
I just skimmed the article, having received treatments of Bayes' theorem many
times over the course of my almost-finished college career; however, I think
this is neat, because making use of visualization/imagery is a good approach
to teaching and understanding statistics, which the human brain is (typically)
not capable of handling well.

