←back to thread

Statistical Rethinking (2024 Edition)

(github.com)
193 points lnyan | 1 comments | 16 Nov 24 18:08 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nextos ◴[16 Nov 24 20:40 UTC] No.42159124[source]▶
It's a great book, but my personal opinion is that it would have benefited from an editor that recommended some small changes. The previous edition had a TOC which was barely usable because all funny jokes in chapter names like "8 Conditional Manatees". Besides, there were too many jokes embedded in some sections, which made them difficult to follow. I think some of these issues are getting addressed in the current edition.

Nonetheless, the book is very well written and all figures and examples show great attention to detail. I found Gelman et al Regression and Other Stories better for teaching newcomers, and surprisingly insightful. Statistical Rethinking is a good choice for a second course, but perhaps too informal at that stage.

replies(3): >>42159504 #>>42159564 #>>42161449 #
blackeyeblitzar ◴[16 Nov 24 21:26 UTC] No.42159504[source]▶
What are the prerequisites for the topics covered in this book? I feel like the lecture list is hard to understand, maybe sort of like the book’s TOC.
replies(2): >>42159576 #>>42160985 #
rscho ◴[16 Nov 24 21:37 UTC] No.42159576[source]▶
Honestly, I think there are very little prerequisites. I'm an MD dabbling into stats and found the book very well made as well as understandable.
replies(1): >>42160633 #
NeuroCoder ◴[16 Nov 24 23:50 UTC] No.42160633{3}[source]▶
As an MD/PhD I wish all MD researchers read this book. Heck, I wish all neuro researchers read it. If you are already established in in stats and math and your interest is just another math book to casually read or reference, this is a bad choice
replies(1): >>42161165 #
fn-mote ◴[17 Nov 24 01:21 UTC] No.42161165{4}[source]▶
WHY do you think it’s bad for that background? Please!

What if you know math but not stats? How much stats do I need to know before you think this isn’t good to browse?

Wish I knew… I guess I’ll have to find out the hard way.

replies(2): >>42161239 #>>42162119 #
1. NeuroCoder ◴[17 Nov 24 01:35 UTC] No.42161239{5}[source]▶
It's just very conversational. If you are comfortable with stats and just need a reference it can be obnoxious. I think I went through the first edition in my PhD and it was better than a stats course. But when I want a quick reference for something it is to much reading to get to the point. It might be more well organized now though.