[gregjor]

I'm not sure what you're arguing but it seems like some form of ecological fallacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

I'm not even sure what statistics has to do with the OP's question or my responses. It only came up because you implied I don't understand "Bayesian likelihood" in your ad hominem.

My point is that a student can get a poor math grade or struggle in high school for reasons other than lack of ability or interest in math. One way to test that is to try learning math in a different environment (the personal example I gave). If a student is failing math one hypothesis is they are not able to understand math, or aren't applying themselves. Another hypothesis is that the teaching environment is less than ideal -- something Bayesian likelihood might support.

[jimmyvalmer]

I'm not even sure what statistics has to do with the OP's question

Well, that was obvious. What's more likely? That OP is failing math because it's beneath him, or because he's got more in common with the *prior* million disaffected dropouts?

[gregjor]

I see. I don’t really care about or think it’s relevant why the OP is struggling with math. My comments were suggesting alternatives to high school math classes that may have better outcomes. I took the OP at their word that they want to learn high school level math, which is I think obviously a different goal than getting a good grade in math class.