Personally I am very very confused about infra-Bayesianism, so I cannot comment on this post. This is despite the fact that I would really like to understand it as I’m pretty interested in the notion of naturalized induction.
I think a big constraint preventing me and others from getting into infra-Bayesianism is that you are immediately hit with a giant wall of math that you have no intuition for. Meanwhile when it comes to ordinary Bayesianism, I have a lot of intuition due to having been exposed to lots of basic examples and such. I think production of extremely beginner-friendly material could get a lot more people discussing this.
(I could probably learn it without extremely beginner-friendly material if I took a lot of time to sit down and work with the hard math. But then it competes for my attention with many other topics that I also really should put effort into, so it is unlikely to happen.)
I think the thing I would like most is a post that’s “explain why infrabayes matters like I’m 5, basically without math.” (Admittedly I’m not the main target audience, but, I think this is a valuable thing to exist that will help figure out the pedagogical architecture of an eventual textbook)
I’m somewhat worried, from some past experience hearing people try to learn about infrabayes, that you and Alex keep overshooting in complexity. Curious if for the textbook Alex is talking to people with various degrees of background knowledge and seeing how different explanations land?
Personally I am very very confused about infra-Bayesianism, so I cannot comment on this post. This is despite the fact that I would really like to understand it as I’m pretty interested in the notion of naturalized induction.
I think a big constraint preventing me and others from getting into infra-Bayesianism is that you are immediately hit with a giant wall of math that you have no intuition for. Meanwhile when it comes to ordinary Bayesianism, I have a lot of intuition due to having been exposed to lots of basic examples and such. I think production of extremely beginner-friendly material could get a lot more people discussing this.
(I could probably learn it without extremely beginner-friendly material if I took a lot of time to sit down and work with the hard math. But then it competes for my attention with many other topics that I also really should put effort into, so it is unlikely to happen.)
Well, Alex is on a working on an infra-Bayesianism textbook, maybe that will help.
I think the thing I would like most is a post that’s “explain why infrabayes matters like I’m 5, basically without math.” (Admittedly I’m not the main target audience, but, I think this is a valuable thing to exist that will help figure out the pedagogical architecture of an eventual textbook)
I’m somewhat worried, from some past experience hearing people try to learn about infrabayes, that you and Alex keep overshooting in complexity. Curious if for the textbook Alex is talking to people with various degrees of background knowledge and seeing how different explanations land?
Personally I feel like I get why it matters from the other posts, and would just like a gentle introduction to the math.
Cool! I too was intimidated by all the math, but I want to understand it at some point!