## Is statistics beyond introductory statistics important for general reasoning?

Ideas such as regression to the mean, that correlation does not imply causation and base rate fallacy are very important for reasoning about the world in general. One gets these from a deep understanding of statistics 101, and the basics of the Bayesian statistical paradigm. Up until one year ago, I was under the impression that more advanced statistics is technical elaboration that doesn't offer major additional insights into thinking about the world *in general*.

Nothing could be further from the truth: **ideas from advanced statistics are essential for reasoning about the world, even on a day-to-day level.** In hindsight my prior belief seems very naive – as far as I can tell, my only reason for holding it is that I hadn't heard anyone say otherwise. But I hadn't actually looked advanced statistics to see whether or not my impression was justified :D.

Since then, I've learned some advanced statistics and machine learning, and the ideas that I've learned have radically altered my worldview. The "official" prerequisites for this material are calculus, differential multivariable calculus, and linear algebra. But one doesn't actually need to have *detailed* knowledge of these to understand ideas from advanced statistics well enough to benefit from them. The problem is pedagogical: I need to figure out how how to communicate them in an accessible way.

## Advanced statistics enables one to reach nonobvious conclusions

To give a bird's eye view of the perspective that I've arrived at,** in practice**, the ideas from "basic" statistics are generally useful primarily for **disproving** hypotheses. This pushes in the direction of a state of **radical agnosticism**: the idea that one can't really know anything for sure about lots of important questions. More advanced statistics enables one to become **justifiably confident in nonobvious conclusions**, often even in the absence of formal evidence coming from the standard scientific practice.

## IQ research and PCA as a case study

The work of Spearman and his successors on IQ constitute one of the pinnacles of achievement in the social sciences. But while Spearman's discovery of IQ was a great discovery, it wasn't his *greatest* discovery. His greatest discovery was a discovery about *how to do social science research*. He pioneered the use of** factor analysis**, a close relative of

**principal component analysis (PCA).**

## The philosophy of dimensionality reduction

PCA is a *dimensionality reduction* method. Real world data often has the surprising property of "dimensionality reduction": *a *small number of latent variables explain a large fraction of the variance in data.

This is related to the effectiveness of Occam's razor: it turns out to be possible to describe a surprisingly large amount of what we see around us in terms of a **small** number of variables. Only, the variables that explain a lot usually **aren't the variables that are immediately visible*** – *instead they're hidden from us, and in order to model reality, we need to discover them, which is the function that PCA serves. The small number of variables that drive a large fraction of variance in data can be thought of as a sort of "backbone" of the data. That enables one to understand the data at a "macro / big picture / structural" level.

This is a very long story that will take a long time to flesh out, and doing so is one of my main goals.

I've only been in CS academia, and wouldn't call that a cult. I would call it, like most of the rest of academia, a deeply dysfunctional industry in which to work, but that's the fault of the academic career and funding structure. CS is even relatively healthy by comparison to much of the rest.

How much of our impression of mathematics as a creepy, mental-health-harming cult comes from pure stereotyping?

For what its worth, I have observed a certain reverence in the way great mathematicians are treated by their lesser-accomplished colleagues that can often border on the creepy. This is something specific to math, in that it seems to exist in other disciplines with lesser intensity.

But I agree, "dysfunctional" seems to be a more apt label than "cult." May I also add "fashion-prone?"