Visualizing Bayes' theorem
blog.oscarbonilla.com
blog.oscarbonilla.com
I stared at the pages unable to comprehend how he thought the size of a penny held a mile away was easier to visualise than the alternative.
Likewise Eliezer's "Intuitive" explanation of Bayesianity - I've read through it twice (lightly) and it's thoroughly not intuitive. I'd need to study it not just read it.
Presumably there is some distance from my current mental state vector to any with a comfortable grasp of Bayesian probability, and some explanations will take a quick route and some a less direct one. Hence, I think there are different 'best' explanations for different people depending on what they already know, what they want to know and what they want to touch upon along the way.
I'm skeptical that there is one "_the_ best way" to teach probability, or anything else.
Does it? Are you http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ ?
One more thing I would like to add is that everyone has a biased opinion of things based on their perception of the world and that's why I think there should be debates. Generalizing from examples and experiences is a natural method developed during evolution.
If a kid touches a hot plate and experiences pain, I think it is perfectly valid that it should generalize that to all other hot plates. :)
More data is needed.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_learning 20% of people are auditory learners.
Since the only remaining group is visual learners, 65% of people must be visual learners.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/normann/statistics/faculty/te...