That part is probably what you mean by “the textbook definition”, but I don’t know what textbooks you’ve been reading.
The definition I learned in public school, which does have a rather extreme “progressive” bias.
I am not seeing that in your use of the phrase “Bayesian prior”, which you seem to be waving as a rationalist password without noticing the step that it implies, of looking at data and updating from it.
Like the data on the relationship between sex and intelligence. The data on the relationship between how many men a women has had sex with and her ability to participate in future stable relationships.
Like the data on the relationship between sex and intelligence. The data on the relationship between how many men a women has had sex with and her ability to participate in future stable relationships.
In that case, you are talking about posteriors, not priors, and there is no need for the Bayes jargon. Beliefs, conclusions, from whatever sources and methods it may have been. “Bayes” is not a Power Word: Stun.
Of course, it’s still prior to looking at the person in front of you and observing them.
The definition I learned in public school, which does have a rather extreme “progressive” bias.
Like the data on the relationship between sex and intelligence. The data on the relationship between how many men a women has had sex with and her ability to participate in future stable relationships.
In that case, you are talking about posteriors, not priors, and there is no need for the Bayes jargon. Beliefs, conclusions, from whatever sources and methods it may have been. “Bayes” is not a Power Word: Stun.
Of course, it’s still prior to looking at the person in front of you and observing them.
It is, however, often used to fill in the phase 2 in the underpants gnomes business plan.
Good, I see you are making progress in understanding this.
I hope that one day I will be able to say the same of you.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of you.