reading the self-important and vaguely-cultish textbooks by bayesians makes me want to go out and kill a sufficiently large number of bayesians that i can estimate the mean pitch of their screams

"when we have multiple models, we should choose one using Bayesian statistics"

no

you should do both and publish an appendix showing robustness tests, you cultist
"but my bayesian model takes 4 weeks to process i can't run 1,397 robustness tests"

yes

exactly
"it's #Actually impossible to use predictive accuracy to test model validity because we can't observe future values!!!"

omg

this is a real critically acclaimed textbook im barely even paraphrasing here
i don't trust quantitative methods where people say, "this method has been in use for centuries!"

that is a solid argument for perhaps a theological proposition

it is not highly compelling for code
and yes I will be live-tweeting my Frequentist zealotry all term you're so, so welcome
i should not the paragraph after "centuries!!!" literally begins with a reference to Hindu cosmology so "it's a religious sect" is not a lampoon im just pulling out whole cloth and also the book begins with Golems, so
i am not actually opposed to bayesian modelling

i am simply opposed to bayesians
love textbooks that say, "the way we should do statistics is to ensure that every student individually understands every mathematical development of the last 8,000 years"
in fact what we should do is seek to develop tools which allow practitioners to *forget* the underlying math, and yet still advance their disciplines and the statistical methods themselves
given limited human processing power, the objective of progress of knowledge must be that prior technologies and knowledge becomes irrelevant and sufficiently automated that it need no longer be learned
you should not teach people to use an abacus!
wow great minds think alike https://t.co/Ka1h5qaKv3
in practice, and I know this will hurt a lot of feelings, the actual scientific standard for statistical quality is simply whatever the current revision of Stata is divided by 2, or whatever the most popular new R packages were a decade ago
by the way i have a recent anti-Bayesian chip on my shoulder because I'm writing a rebuttal for a paper which used an off-the-shelf Bayesian model in a Very Bad Way to make extremely strong conclusions based on like n=82
they literally said, "we used bayesian models because it lets us make extremely strong conclusions from very little actual data"

and im like

no

no that is not what it lets you do
"our sample sucked and told us nothing in conventional models, so we used a model that lets us assume away the more inconvenient parts of our data, and now our results are what we wanted to be!"

what bayesians say bayesianism isn't

but

what the papers using their models do
in fairness some good bayesians have criticized the model underlying the paper im criticizing.... which points to the fact that "bayesian" just means "leaves votive offerings at the altar of bayes" not "uses some specific credible methodology"
look the fact that your stats models have schools of thought named after the prophets "We are Logical Coxian Bayesians, not Judean Peoples' Front Bayesians!" is maybe a problem
and yes i know that Bayesians like to refer to frequentists as Fisherians but we don't call ourselves Fisherians because *we're not a cult*
oh hey by the way I'm a Lutheran
okay we're doing a globe-spinning analogy about probability and im made because spinning hand-sized objects with color-coded differences isn't even a random sample! a normal human can stick their finger on a spinning globe and hit either land or water at will!
likewise, spinning an object will not create a random rotation and land and water are not randomly distributed so your final distribution of land and water landing points may not be random
i know i'm overthinking this but if you're writing a textbook about statistics and trying to give a random example ***give an actually random example***! not one which is obviously not random!
by the way folks

you should have strong prior im not actually a bayesian-murderer, strong enough that your model should never permit the conclusion that im actually a bayesian-murderer, meaning you should be able to tell the first tweet was a joke
of course, while im not a bayesian-murderer, i suppose i could be a bayesian murderer
there was also a metaphor about marbles, but the marbles were in a garden, and also Borges was involved, because of course Borges was involved because he always is. It was convoluted. Like Borges. https://t.co/9jZLEyNV9n
SHADE THROWN

wow

that's something
the next sentence talks about "social sciences" separate from economics so lolololol
did you know that in centuries nobody has every used bayesian priors to lie
the above tweet is proof that, in fact, while we always thought Scotsmen were rare, True Bayesians are even rarer!
this textbook literally says "Linear regression is the 'geocentric model' of applied statistics" i.e. comparing it to Ptolemaic astronomy and then says, "so you need to learn and understand it first to move on to other things."

astronomers be like ???????
if anyone can point me to the core course in astronomy programs on geocentrism id be very interested

More from Lyman Stone 石來民

So a few days back I was tweeting about SSRIs. The big question with these drugs is: why do controlled trials routinely show such small effects when practitioners and patients report life-changingly-large effects?

So first off, at this point the evidence is pretty clear that SSRIs and other anti-anxiety/anti-depression drugs truly don't do very much. Their average effects are beneath clinical significance, as I tweeted about here:


Basically, the problem these drugs face is that while they actually see relatively LARGE effects.... but that placebos in those trials ALSO see large effects (and most untreated depression improves within a year anyways).

So basically you have this problem where:
1. The condition tends to improve on its own in a majority of cases
2. Placebo effects for the condition are unusually large

Which means the large crude effects of SSRIs get swamped.

So that raises two new questions.
1. (Not my focus here) Are we treating these conditions appropriately given their untreated prognosis is usually (though certainly not always!!) "goes away in a few months"?

2. Why are placebo effects so unusually large?

More from Culture

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x

You May Also Like

Oh my Goodness!!!

I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!

Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!


Has this man been concealing his true identity?

Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?

Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!

Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?


Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??


Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?

Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.


#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.
Tip from the Monkey
Pangolins, September 2019 and PLA are the key to this mystery
Stay Tuned!


1. Yang


2. A jacobin capuchin dangling a flagellin pangolin on a javelin while playing a mandolin and strangling a mannequin on a paladin's palanquin, said Saladin
More to come tomorrow!


3. Yigang Tong
https://t.co/CYtqYorhzH
Archived: https://t.co/ncz5ruwE2W


4. YT Interview
Some bats & pangolins carry viruses related with SARS-CoV-2, found in SE Asia and in Yunnan, & the pangolins carrying SARS-CoV-2 related viruses were smuggled from SE Asia, so there is a possibility that SARS-CoV-2 were coming from