Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Such a bizarre question. Many, many people have read statistics textbooks.
Can you write one that's more worth reading than the standard ones? Don't answer that question, just prove it.
by pessimizer - Practical advice:
- put a lot of 'teaching' into the book. Don't write so the learner memorizes; instead, motivate each discussion so that the learner understands, and gains what Wirth calls _coverage_.
- ensure there are no errors; this will turn off learners.
- keep a light tone, be yourself not a stuffed shirt. A good model for such writing is Nassim Taleb's non-technical books.
- never seem to be in a hurry. Many good books were ruined because midway the author lost interest and just hurried up.
- don't be too verbose, and neither too concise. Every sentence should do required work; learn how to write (if needed) and practice daily.
- ensure the book uses good, comfortable fonts, and good typography. Must learn this. Many good books ruined due to lack of fluency effect.
If you conscientiously do these things, there will always be readers for your book.
Good luck!
by jan_m_savage - Having also studied statistics in university (undergrad), something I kept running into is that you can't really unlock the intuition for many concepts without taking more advanced courses. For example, degrees of freedom shows up as early as AP Statistics, but even a non-rigorous visual explanation of it leans on linear algebra, which most students don't see until much later.
I think more resources like seeing-theory would be great since stats books are almost universally dry (Blitzstein being a notable exception), but I'm not sure how easily more advanced concepts lend themselves to visual explanation in a way that's digestible for a non-stats person.
by mdspan - How would it overlap or differ from 'Statistical Rethinking'?
This is widely regarded as the most accessible intro textbook to Bayesian statistics.
by montalbano - I'm a nerd and do a lot of stats for my job and I would not read a statistics textbook.
I read a lot of informational things, but math / stats / software has always felt like an area where a book is just the wrong format.
If I were you I'd make an interactive website like SQLZoo or a video series like StatQuest.
Those are educational formats that really clicked with me for whatever reason.
- My personal opinion is that statistics textbooks usually come from a prescriptive perspective, and that makes it challenging for the reader to get visceral intuition for what is actually going on. Any reader would be far better off just visualizing the damn distribution / samples and using reasonable judgement, instead of implicitly assuming a Gaussians distribution and blindly memorizing tests / formulae. Making the distributions explicit allows us to model them and get an intuition for what the samples are telling us. I would whole-heartedly recommend the Model based machine learning book to anyone (online version is free) https://mbmlbook.com/by ssivark
- I've got a Bachelors and two Masters degrees in CS/Math, but yet I feel Probability and Statistics is my greatest weakness. I just cannot grok it / build an intuition for it, and believe me, I've tried. My biggest gripe with Prob/Stats textbooks is that it's very hard to explain things without needing to rely on measure theory.
Maybe probability and statistics are a skill issue on my behalf, but what I absolutely loathe is the absolute lack of standardisation when it comes to notation in measure theory. Every textbook does it differently. All of them assume that their notation is the one everyone uses. Nobody bothers to explain _what_ the notation means. If you ask me, every bit of new notation should be introduced with a sentence or two on "how to read this symbol in your head" - especially when there are indices, subscripts and superscripts involved. It's especially terrible for measure theory because there's so much "implicit" information you're supposed to gather from the context - but in a way I understand it, because if every bit of notation of absolute and complete, I imagine it would be quite hard to type up.
Anyways, my rant on measure theory notation aside - I would absolutely read yet another Prob/Stats textbook. But unfortunately I will also drop it really quickly if the author doesn't show me any "notation-sympathy" :)
by actualeff0rt - No idea about statistics, but in most physict courses in my university, they recomend 3 books:
1) The main book, that has a complete explanation and is well ordered. It's for learning.
2) Tha Landau book, that is super short and hard. It's only to check you didn't miss any important formula or topic.
3) There Feynman book, that is anassorted colection of fairytales for physicist. It's a pleasure to read it but you must already read 1 to understand it.
4) The Shaum book, that is almost a colection of exercices. Some people hate it. Some people love it. I like it as a companion to theother books.
I guess you are complaining that 1 is boring and want to write 3. It's a good idea, but it's harder than expected.
by gus_massa