"you're allowed to increase P(BadDriver) a little bit,"
No, you're really not.
You're only allowed to replace P(BadDriver) with P(BadDriver|HadOneAccident).
If you have a second accident, you replace that in turn with P(BadDriver|HadOneAccident^HadASecondAccident), which if you are rational you might reexamine and update to P(BadDriver|HadTwoAccidents^HadQuiteALotOfNearMissesIfWeAreBeingHonest)
But my point is, when applying each new piece of evidence, you have to remember the conditions that caused you to get your current probability, or you end up with naive Bayes and after seeing a few new bookcases you believe in aliens.
This experts-with-clay analogy I found EXTREMELY helpful. I appreciate different explanations work for different people, but I really do think this could have come a LOT earlier in the essay.
Is it possible to have a visualisation of the clay allocation scenario?
No, you're really not.
You're only allowed to replace P(BadDriver) with P(BadDriver|HadOneAccident).
If you have a second accident, you replace that in turn with P(BadDriver|HadOneAccident^HadASecondAccident), which if you are rational you might reexamine and update to P(BadDriver|HadTwoAccidents^HadQuiteALotOfNearMissesIfWeAreBeingHonest)
But my point is, when applying each new piece of evidence, you have to remember the conditions that caused you to get your current probability, or you end up with naive Bayes and after seeing a few new bookcases you believe in aliens.
This experts-with-clay analogy I found EXTREMELY helpful. I appreciate different explanations work for different people, but I really do think this could have come a LOT earlier in the essay.