You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

XFrequentist comments on The "best" mathematically-informed topics? - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Capla 14 November 2014 03:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (113)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: XFrequentist 15 November 2014 07:30:41PM 7 points [-]

[Hey, I thought I was the token epidemiologist! ;) ]

I largely agree with Anders' comment (leave Pearl be for now; it's a difficult book), but there are some interesting non-causal mathy epidemiology topics that might suit your needs.

Concretely: study networks. Specifically, pick up the book Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World (or download the free pdf, or take the free MOOC).

It presents a smooth slope of increasing mathematical sophistication (assuming only basic high school math at the outset), and is endlessly interesting as it gently builds and extends concepts. It eventually touches many of the topics you've indicated interest in (game theory, voting, epidemic dynamics, etc), giving you some powerful mathematical tools to reason with. Advanced sections are clearly marked as such, and can be passed over without losing coherence.

And hey, if the math in the advanced sections frustrates your understanding... that's basically what you've said you want!

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 19 November 2014 03:11:15PM *  1 point [-]

If I was once employed by a Dept. of Epidemiology does that also make me the token epidemiologist? :)

Epidemiology is defined to be things done by people in Departments of Epidemiology, correct?

Comment author: Lumifer 19 November 2014 03:35:41PM 1 point [-]

If I was once employed by a Dept. of Epidemiology does that also make me the token epidemiologist? :)

That makes you an expert on epidemiology, duh :-)