Visualizing Bayes Theorem (2009)
source link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29768151
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Visualizing Bayes Theorem (2009)
But P(B) just sat there. Puzzling. Then I realized that it starts at P(B|A) = P(B| not A) which is a special case.
An excellent philosophical toy :-)
One big square represents the whole result space having a probability of 1, ie an area of 1 (side length 1x1). The four colors partiotion the whole space in all 4 combinations: 1. A happens and B happens, 2. A happens but not B, 3. A does not happen but B, 4. neither A nor B happen.
Each of the four colors has an area representing the corresponding probability. Naturally all 4 areas sum to 1.
The left and right big squres are simply the same areas just arranged differently to create a straight vertical or horizontal split.
This leads to the side lenghts of the areas corresponding to the probabilities of A happening, B happensing and the dependent probsbilities (eg A happening given that B happens, or B happening given that A happens, etc).
Given that two areas of the same color are the same size you can derive bayes theorem by converting the side length of one rectangle to that of the other same colored reactangle.
For example: The pink rectangle has the area equal to the probability Pr(B∩A). the left pink rectangle is factorized into the side lengths of width=Pr(A) and height=Pr(B|A). So the area is widthheight = Pr(A)Pr(B|A) = Pr(B∩A). The right pink rectangle is factorized into Pr(A|B) and Pr(B) instead, but has the same area Pr(B∩A).
Also you can see that the aligned side of two rectangle sum to 1. For example on the left side the height of the pink plus the height of the orange always sum to one.
Now by changing the probabilities by dragging the sliders you can see that there are configurations in which the height of a rectangle on the left side differs very stark from the width of the rectangle on the right side. For example when Pr(B|A) is totally different than Pr(A|B). But there are also configurations when they match.
So many in my family still haven’t groked that Covid is endemic, that kids don’t have a 50% chance of being hospitalized after getting Covid, etc.
I process their anxiety troubles as false priors due to too much media consumption, which has an economic incentive to have valuable fear-driven priors versus statistically accurate priors.
P(Bad Stuff | I take action A) > P(Bad Stuff | I take action B)
So you take action B in this scenario (simplifying to ignore costs, many of these decisions are costless). We get a bunch of meaningless drivel in the news though that doesn't help anyone make any meaningful probability estimates to help them make decisions. I think the Rogan/Gupta interview is a good example. We get various non-sense comparisons such as:
P(Bad Stuff | Covid, Person 5, No Vaccine) < P(Bad Stuff | Covid, Person 50, Vaccine)
[Rogan to Gupta why is it OK for 50 year old to feel safe and not a young kid without a vaccine? Irrelevant counter-factual unless someone invents a reverse aging treatment.]
P(Heart Inflammation | Covid Vaccine, Young Male) > P(Death | Covid, Young Male)
[Rogan saying side effects for young people outweigh benefits. This is true but death is quite a bit worse than the side effects, and this does not consider other Bad Stuff from Covid like long haulers.]
Knowing Bayes Theorem doesn't help someone figure out the right probability statement they should be interested in to begin with.
P(B|A)P(A)
P(A|B) = -------------
P(B)
But there is nothing in the visualisation that helps you see what those ratios are ... even less so what it might mean to multiply P(B|A) and P(A).
P(A|B) * P(B) = P(A U B) = P(B|A) * P(A)
=>
P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
Search:
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK