= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Which fields of learning have clarified your thinking? How and why? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (64)
If it's math-sense that you seek, take statistics courses until you think you could explain statistics to literature majors at a cocktail party. That's vastly more math-sense than most people have.
Also, classes in game theory (aka decision theory) could develop a different kind of quantitative thinking. But I don't think that is what most people mean when they say "Math-sense"
Is that supposed to be a lot or a little statistics?
The meme that liberal arts majors are almost always terrible at mathematics is incredibly dangerous to raising the sanity line. The meme is part of the same cluster of ideas as "Liking/Being good at math is weird and not for normal people." Sorry if I'm overreacting to the joke, but I really believe the meme is that dangerous.
If you weren't joking, sorry for misinterpreting you. The answer to your question, you want enough statistics training that you can deduce the really basic concepts (population, sample, null hypothesis) by yourself. Depending on the person, the focus of the professor, and the quality of the class, that could mean one really good class or a year long sequence. As I said above, your goal is to be able to explain a concept like regression to an interested lay audience.
Here's your audience.
(that's a parody, just making sure you know)
A hilarious parody, with a link to its amazing inspiration!