3 ms·

I agree with the author that we should avoid feelings of resentment towards people who are successful. However it bothers me that the author classifies trace of

I agree with the author that we should avoid feelings of resentment towards people who are successful. However it bothers me that the author classifies trace of a matrix as math trivia. I think sometimes people will categorize their current knowledge as "the important stuff", and everything else is "just trivia". This can be a dangerous trap that prevents personal improvement.

ebcode 9y ago
You might have misread or misinterpreted the opening paragraph. I don't see where the author classifies the trace of a matrix as trivia, though she does refer to some linear algebra concepts as "basic".
ezy 9y ago
I get what you are saying, but my impression was that she wasn't dismissing unknown knowledge as intrinsically trivia, just the use of it in a certain context. When you use knowledge as a status marker, it becomes trivia -- because it isn't related to the application of such knowledge. In the case laid out in the OP, it is a little subtle, but it's really about status games, not the knowledge itself. Otherwise he wouldn't need to make someone feel like shit for not knowing (or remembering) the term. For example, I will readily admit I had to look it up because I don't use the term often -- I remembered learning it, and vaguely that it was related to the diagonal/determinant, but that was about it. That doesn't make it trivia, but it doesn't make me an idiot either. So, it's not trivia if one needs to use it, but that's not how the protagonist in the essay used it. You can imagine how differently things would have gone if he kept his judgement to himself, had sharing information as the real goal, and simply explained what the trace was in the context of the conversation without the putdown. It wouldn't be trivia in that context, because it would be relevant to a useful conversation -- not a status cudgel.

ebcode 9y ago

You might have misread or misinterpreted the opening paragraph. I don't see where the author classifies the trace of a matrix as trivia, though she does refer to some linear algebra concepts as "basic".

ezy 9y ago

I get what you are saying, but my impression was that she wasn't dismissing unknown knowledge as intrinsically trivia, just the use of it in a certain context. When you use knowledge as a status marker, it becomes trivia -- because it isn't related to the application of such knowledge. In the case laid out in the OP, it is a little subtle, but it's really about status games, not the knowledge itself. Otherwise he wouldn't need to make someone feel like shit for not knowing (or remembering) the term. For example, I will readily admit I had to look it up because I don't use the term often -- I remembered learning it, and vaguely that it was related to the diagonal/determinant, but that was about it. That doesn't make it trivia, but it doesn't make me an idiot either. So, it's not trivia if one needs to use it, but that's not how the protagonist in the essay used it. You can imagine how differently things would have gone if he kept his judgement to himself, had sharing information as the real goal, and simply explained what the trace was in the context of the conversation without the putdown. It wouldn't be trivia in that context, because it would be relevant to a useful conversation -- not a status cudgel.