= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Swimmer963 comments on 2012 Survey Results - 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 (640)
I assign about 80% probability to less than 25% of adults knowing Bayes theorem and how to use it. I took physics and calculus and other such advanced courses in high school, and graduated never having heard of Bayes' Theorem. I didn't learn about it in university, either–granted, I was in 'Statistics for Nursing', it's possible that the 'Statistics for Engineering' syllabus included it.
Only 80%?
In the USA, about 30% of adults have a bachelor's degree or higher, and about 44% of those have done a degree where I can slightly conceive that they might possibly meet Bayes' theorem (those in the science & engineering and science- & engineering-related categories (includes economics), p. 3), i.e. as a very loose bound 13% of US adults may have met Bayes' theorem.
Even bumping the 30% up to the 56% who have "some college" and using the 44% for a estimate of the true ratio of possible-Bayes'-knowledge, that's only just 25% of the US adult population.
(I've no idea how this extends to the rest of the world, the US data was easiest to find.)
You did your research and earned your confidence level. I didn't look anything up, just based an estimate on anecdotal evidence (the fact that I didn't learn it in school despite taking lots of sciences). Knowing what you just told me, I would update my confidence level a little–I'm probably 90% sure that less than 25% of adults know Bayes Theorem. (I should clarify that=adults living in the US, Canada, Britain, and other countries with similar school systems. The percentage for the whole world is likely significantly lower.)
I hear Britain's school system is much better than the US's.
Once you control for demographics, the US public school system actually performs relatively well.
Good point.
The UK high school system does not cover Bayes Theorem.
If you choose maths as one of your A-levels, there's a good chance you will cover stats 1 which includes the formula for Bayes' Theorem and how to apply it to calculate medical test false positives/false negatives (and equivalent problems). However it isn't named and the significance to science/rationality is not explained, so it's just seen as "one more formula to learn".
Offhand, 1/2 young people do A levels, 1/4 of those do maths, and 2/3 of those do stats, giving us 1/12 of young people. I don't think any of these numbers are off by enough to push the fraction over 25%
Maybe you guys could solve that problem by publishing some results demonstrating its exteme significance
As far as I know, it's been formally demonstrated to be the absolutely mathematically-optimal method of achieving maximal hypothesis accuracy in an environment with obscured, limited or unreliable information.
That's basically saying: "There is no possible way to do better than this using mathematics, and as far as we know there doesn't yet exist anything more powerful than mathematics."
What more could you want? A theorem proving that any optimal decision theory must necessarily use Bayesian updating? ETA: It has been pointed out that there already exists such a theorem. I could've found that out by looking it up. Oops.
There already is such a theorem. From Wikipedia:
As far as I can tell from wikipedia's description of admissibility, it makes the same assumptions as CDT: That the outcome depends only on your action and the state of the environment, and not on any other properties of your algorithm. This assumption fails in multi-player games.
So your quote actually means: If you're going to use CDT then Bayes is the optimal way to derive your probabilities.
It's not great by international standards, but I have heard that the US system is particularly bad for an advanced country.
In terms of outcomes, the US does pretty terribly when considered 1 country, but when split into several countries it appears at the top of each class. Really, the EU is cheating by considering itself multiple countries.
The EU arguably is more heterogeneous than the US. But then, India is even more so.
How's it being split?
I actually thought someone would dig up and provide the relevant link by now. I'll have to find it.
You mean comparing poorer states to poorer countries?
Actually it is quite good (even for an "advanced country") if you compare the test scores of, say, Swedes and Swedish-Americans rather than Swedes and Americans as a whole.
I wonder what that's controlling for? Cultural tendencies to have different levels of work ethic?
Hmmm. So it's "good" but people with the wrong genes are spoiling the average somehow.
Must be a problem of the American school system, I suppose.
Did they teach you about conditional probability? Usually Bayes' theorem is introduced right after the definition of conditional probability.