I found that even where I can parse a technical text (understand all introduced notions, without needing to look up the notions that are used without being defined), it's not a sufficient condition for me being ready for the text. It takes a lot of background effort to build technical fluency that allows to take away a deeper and lasting understanding of a given topic, fluency that isn't required to merely parse the text, or even solve the exercises and ace the exam. Without this fluency, without being prepared, acquired knowledge remains superficial, never becomes very useful, and quickly fades out of memory.
It's like reading a novel in a barely known foreign tongue, translating with a dictionary, and juggling the syntax without feeling the flow of the language. Technically, you can translate everything, but there is no hope for understanding the subtle points of the narrative, and the only way to get there is through obtaining fluency first, and reading the novel later.
What this tells me is that where I can't even parse a text on my own (i.e. there is a non-negligible number of statements I can't understand, or exercises I don't see how to solve), this is an absolutely unambiguo...
Even when I am perfectly capable of understanding something myself, I find it extremely helpful to learn with other interested people in a "study, study, then discuss" kind of format. I come to my own conclusions about the text while I study, just as I would if I were working by myself, but then I additionally get to compare the details of my conclusions with those of other minds working independently. Also, having participants with diverse intellectual backgrounds means that they may be able to identify and share interesting tangential ideas that would not have occurred to me alone.
I also find that communicating my thoughts to other people forces me to clarify them to a greater degree, often revealing small gaps in understanding that I had papered over in my own mind.
My outside view, in that I have rarely seen online book clubs or group readings ever work out*, is that you will probably fail.
Many times the attempts seem to founder on a lack of clear objectives or a clunky technical setup. I suggest you work on these; many short, automatically graded exercises, and a quick easy interface to them may work for a math-heavy PT:TLOS.
(Even if you did set up such a site - which would be a great resource - I am still pessimistic. I have PT:TLOS, and it requires quite a bit of math. Better know your calculus well.)
(Oh, and you ...
Please reply to this comment if you intend to participate, and are willing and able to free up a few hours per week or fortnight to work through the suggested reading or exercises.
Please indicate where you live, if you would be willing to have some discussion IRL. My intent is to facilitate an online discussion here on LW but face-to-face would be a nice complement, in locations where enough participants live.
(You need not check in again here if you have already done so in the previous discussion thread, but you can do so if you want to add details such as your location.)
I'm not exactly between 0 and 1...But I have some hours available here, and would like to do this. I've been through bits of Jaynes, but the social aspect will make doing the whole thing more interesting.
FWIW, I've a math degree, and have 20 years of technical (math, software, etc.) teaching expertise, if you'd like some assistance.
I'd suggest to everyone who hasn't as much tech-teaching experience that time spent doing exercises is the only thing that you should be counting as learning-time. Time spent reading has no feedback system, and you don't know (despite believing) whether you've learned anything. Do-->Learn. Read-->???
I think this could be a fun project.
Besides IRL (which is hard to organize) I think other real time communication could be tried out as well. What do you think about the following options:
Does anyone know a good IRC infrastructure that allows for quickly entering and displaying TeX formulas?
Please reply to this comment if you have feedback other than intent to participate, such as ideas on what would make a book club / study group process a satisfactory experience for you.
Re: Preface
Is there a good reason why the Maximum Entropy method is treated as distinct from the Bayesian, rather than simply as a method for generating priors?
As a warm-up, and to indicate how I intend to prompt discussion (subject to the group's feedback) I have posted a summary of the Preface. (ETA: for instance, implications of this method are that it's up to participants to check back on the post from time to time to see if new summaries have been posted; then after reading the parts summarized, come back and answer this comment. Does that work?)
I will start work today on a summary of as much of Chapter 1 as might make for a nice bite-sized chunk to discuss, and post that in a few days, or sooner if the disc...
Is this only for books, or also LW posts? There are so many old posts that could benefit from a "revival" by addressing them in a book club / post club like the one proposed above.
This is as good a time as any for me to tentatively return to this community (last was around in the Overcoming Bias days, when I was a fairly regular commenter and occasional poster, some of you probably remember me).
I'm tentatively in, subject to time crunches.
If it's not too late, I'd like to participate as well.
Lbraschi is my account for Google Wave. I'm in Madrid, Spain.
I'm working through chapter 2 right now, and finding it very rough going from page 203 on if I try to really understand what's going on instead of just skimming for a general outline.
I suppose the text is expecting higher than high-school level math literacy.
I am definitely participating in this! I just started reading the text last week, and have been trying to get someone else interested as well for this purpose. Thanks for the effort!
Study group update
(edited to defer starting group work in earnest - see discussion below - readings to start monday)
On the meta level, what do people think of this method of expanding the study group post by increments?
I'm very interested in participating but suspect I lack the prerequisite knowledge, if any is required. (The most math I remember is up to a Junior-High level).
Sounds interesting. I have severe problems in scheduling my life well enough to get something like weekly reading session done, but I'm interested in trying.
I am interested in participating but unsure of my ability to do so. Consider me a tentative intention yes on participating.
I'm not exactly between 0 and 1...But I have some hours available here, and would like to do this. I've been through bits of Jaynes, but the social aspect will make doing the whole thing more interesting.
FWIW, I've a math degree, and have 20 years of technical (math, software, etc.) teaching expertise, if you'd like some assistance.
I'd suggest to everyone who hasn't as much tech-teaching experience that time spent doing exercises is the only thing that you should be counting as learning-time. Time spent reading has no feedback system, and you don't know (despite believing) whether you've learned anything. Do-->Learn. Read-->???
Do you want to become stronger in the way of Bayes? This post is intended for people whose understanding of Bayesian probability theory is currently somewhat tentative (between levels 0 and 1 to use a previous post's terms), and who are interested in developing deeper knowledge through deliberate practice.
Our intention is to form an online self-study group composed of peers, working with the assistance of a facilitator - but not necessarily of a teacher or of an expert in the topic. Some students may be somewhat more advanced along the path, and able to offer assistance to others.
Our first text will be E.T. Jaynes' Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, which can be found in PDF form (in a slightly less polished version than the book edition) here or here.
We will work through the text in sections, at a pace allowing thorough understanding: expect one new section every week, maybe every other week. A brief summary of the currently discussed section will be published as an update to this post, and simultaneously a comment will open the discussion with a few questions, or the statement of an exercise. Please use ROT13 whenever appropriate in your replies.
A first comment below collects intentions to participate. Please reply to this comment only if you are genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of Bayesian probability and willing to commit to spend a few hours per week reading through the section assigned or doing the exercises.
As a warm-up, participants are encouraged to start in on the book:
Most of the Preface can be safely skipped. It names the giants on whose shoulders Jaynes stood ("History", "Foundations"), deals briefly with the frequentist vs Bayesian controversy ("Comparisons"), discusses his "Style of Presentation" (and incidentally his distrust of infinite sets), and contains the usual acknowledgements.
One section, "What is 'safe'?", stands out as making several strong points about the use of probability theory. Sample: "new data that we insist on analyzing in terms of old ideas (that is, models which are not questioned) cannot lead us out of the old ideas". (The emphasis is Jaynes'. This has an almost Kuhnian flavor.)
Discussion on the Preface starts with this comment.