One of the most satisfying experiences for an academic is when someone asks a question that you’ve already answered. This happened in the comments today.
Daniel Gotthardt wrote:
So for applied stat courses like for sociologists, political scientists, psychologists and maybe also for economics, what do we actually want to accomplish with our intro courses? And how would it help to include Bayesian Statistics in them?
And I was like, hey! This reminds me of a paper I published a few years ago, “Teaching Bayesian applied statistics to graduate students in political science, sociology, public health, education, economics, . . .”
Here it is, and it begins as follows:
I was trying to draw Bert and Ernie the other day, and it was really difficult. I had pictures of them right next to me, but my drawings were just incredibly crude, more “linguistic” than “visual” in the sense that I was portraying key aspects of Bert and Ernie but in pictures that didn’t look anything like them. I know that drawing is difficult—every once in awhile, I sit for an hour to draw a scene, and it’s always a lot of work to get it to look anything like what I’m seeing—but I didn’t realize it would be so hard to draw cartoon characters!
This got me to thinking about the students in my statistics classes. . . .