drewyallop
New
As serious golfers we constantly search for the "answer". That method, tip, guru, theory that will solve the golf problem for us. Many have made money or at least notoriety purporting to have that answer. But I maintain that there is no one right answer and never will be. Everything we hear or see, past, present and future will be to some degree or other wrong.
The objective of golf instruction I think should be to get things less wrong. The only way to do in my view is constantly test what we think we know against new information.
Bayesen thinking is like this. Bayesian analysis starts with a premise (a prior for those familiar with the statistical approach) and then adjusts that premise as new information is obtained. For example you may start with a premise that there is an equal number of black and white balls in an urn (why is it always an "urn"?). So the prior probability of drawing a black or white ball is 50/50. But then you draw 10 balls and find that 7 are white and 3 black. This new information is used to adjust the prior probability to obtain a new probability (the posterior). In this case the probability of there being more white than black balls will go up. This new probability becomes your new prior and the process is repeated.
Similarly you may have a theory about how the golf swing works. Lets say that the theory requires a flat left wrist and bent right wrist through impact. Then you obtain information that shows that top players do not do that through impact. You update your prior. If you have based your teaching on the original theory your teaching must change.
But in many cases it does not. Why? Maybe you make money teaching the theory. Or adherents of the theory may have a social investment in defending the theory because to do otherwise would mean you lose your membership as a disciple and could be ostracized. Or you are afraid that admitting that you were wrong will reduce your credibility and personal status as a guru.
These are certainly powerful reasons for defending the truth as you see it. But ultimately it leads to ossification and arid, endless, fruitless argumentation that often descends to personal attacks on the heretics.
The reason I come here and to Michael Jacobs is that I see this Bayesian thinking most every day. These guys and their associates are constantly trying to get it less wrong. And yes the stuff taught here will change. And ironically the people that purportedly have all the answers will mock because "Six years ago he said this. Now he has changed his mind" not understanding that this is what should happen as new information becomes available.
If you want "the answer" and an infallible guru to provide it this is not the place to be. But if you like to watch (and sometimes participate in) the Bayesian journey then stay here, pay and enjoy.
Of course I could be wrong!
"When the facts change, I change. What do you do sir?" ... A Einstein
The objective of golf instruction I think should be to get things less wrong. The only way to do in my view is constantly test what we think we know against new information.
Bayesen thinking is like this. Bayesian analysis starts with a premise (a prior for those familiar with the statistical approach) and then adjusts that premise as new information is obtained. For example you may start with a premise that there is an equal number of black and white balls in an urn (why is it always an "urn"?). So the prior probability of drawing a black or white ball is 50/50. But then you draw 10 balls and find that 7 are white and 3 black. This new information is used to adjust the prior probability to obtain a new probability (the posterior). In this case the probability of there being more white than black balls will go up. This new probability becomes your new prior and the process is repeated.
Similarly you may have a theory about how the golf swing works. Lets say that the theory requires a flat left wrist and bent right wrist through impact. Then you obtain information that shows that top players do not do that through impact. You update your prior. If you have based your teaching on the original theory your teaching must change.
But in many cases it does not. Why? Maybe you make money teaching the theory. Or adherents of the theory may have a social investment in defending the theory because to do otherwise would mean you lose your membership as a disciple and could be ostracized. Or you are afraid that admitting that you were wrong will reduce your credibility and personal status as a guru.
These are certainly powerful reasons for defending the truth as you see it. But ultimately it leads to ossification and arid, endless, fruitless argumentation that often descends to personal attacks on the heretics.
The reason I come here and to Michael Jacobs is that I see this Bayesian thinking most every day. These guys and their associates are constantly trying to get it less wrong. And yes the stuff taught here will change. And ironically the people that purportedly have all the answers will mock because "Six years ago he said this. Now he has changed his mind" not understanding that this is what should happen as new information becomes available.
If you want "the answer" and an infallible guru to provide it this is not the place to be. But if you like to watch (and sometimes participate in) the Bayesian journey then stay here, pay and enjoy.
Of course I could be wrong!
"When the facts change, I change. What do you do sir?" ... A Einstein
