This is a totally preposterous use of Bayes. It’s like you guys just learned about priors and are throwing out buzz words to make yourselves looks smart!
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
How to use motivated reasoning to believe a man is guilty with 0 evidence..
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
How about we don't use Bayesian reasoning because unless you're testing a very specific null hypothesis with several bodies of work informing observations around that null hypothesis, your priors are just going to be question begging.
-
I understood some of those words.
-
I understand you like badminton or have the greatest porn name I've ever seen.
-
twitter wouldn't let me use rocketpenis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sam is usually useless with anything related politics. I’ll take the other side of his position.
-
His position of "Trump is a moron unfit for office" is simple enough to understand and agree with, so are you just being contrarian there? Presumptuous of me perhaps, but still.
-
Personally I’m tired with people who were ‘fit for office’ running the show. If you hadn’t noticed, they’ve been kinda screwing things up for a long time.
-
By this logic you could also argue for OJ Simpson or Charles Manson for President. Not being a traditional politician isn’t a qualification - especially if your other talents are serial liar, adulterer and fraudster.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do your priors change *at all* after this? https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-hearings-perjury-claims-never-credible/amp/?__twitter_impression=true …
-
In general evidence does not change prior probabilities. Prior probabilities are what you believe prior to encountering evidence. Evidence changes posterior probabilities.
-
Uh, “update priors” is very common parlance. That’s largely synonymous with “changing priors”. Also, it can refer to changing priors for *future* decisions. Today’s posteriors are tomorrow’s priors.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Ooo, I believe he's guilty, but my answers show that the probability of his guilt is fairly low. Yuck!
-
Same here.
-
Damn! I hate being even-handed.
-
I wonder which variables Sam estimated differently for him to get such a high score. The end score I got was unbelievably low. 0.15. Makes no sense.
-
Clearly he went full blue.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.