Ever See the Glazed Eyes When You Teach the 2×2 Table?
If you have ever taught students basic biostatistics, run a journal club, or participated in an EBM course, you know the quizzical looks folks have when you discuss elements beyond the 2×2 table. Well, along comes Nate Silver.
I am a longtime fan and read his first blog before it migrated to the NYT (FiveThirtyEight). His reach is beyond national, and his daily output—shall we say prodigious—is mind blowing, and that speaks nothing of his sophistication and technical skill. You see, he plays with numbers, any kind of numbers. He cut his teeth first with major league baseball (ever hear of PECOTA?), and then migrated to election forecasting and politics. However, nothing is beyond his reach and if you can analyze it and smack it down, he will be the first and best to do it. Seriously, his reputation is pristine.
Now that I’ve dispensed with the preamble, I can advance us into the crux of the post. Simply, it’s Silver’s take on Bayes theorem. The explanation is in his new book (and the plug is incidental, as I have no affiliation with him or the publisher). However, the analogy he uses to impart the Bayes lesson is too delicious to pass up. Hope you like it as much as me.
Do not be afraid to utilize the tutorial tomorrow–as I have already put it through its paces. The lesson works: