You are right. Seems like there is an error in this example and a main problem is not with a prior 1:5 odds, problem is with a bad phrasing and confusion between "crush when winked" odds and "wink likelihood ratio".
you get winked at by people ten times as often when they have a crush on you
Is a statement about likelihood ratio (or at least can be interpreted that way) - P(wink|crush):P(wink|!crush)=10:1
And in final calculation likelihood is used and its correct according to Bayes Rule
To change our mind from the 1:5 prior odds in response to the evidence’s 10:1 likelihood ratio, we multiply the left sides together and the right sides together
You are right. Seems like there is an error in this example and a main problem is not with a prior 1:5 odds, problem is with a bad phrasing and confusion between "crush when winked" odds and "wink likelihood ratio".
Is a statement about likelihood ratio (or at least can be interpreted that way) - P(wink|crush):P(wink|!crush)=10:1
And in final calculation likelihood is used and its correct according to Bayes Rule
While a... (read more)