3 ms·
Not enough mathematics. A substantial chunk of these are derived by analogy from analytical domains which are kind of on the fringe between pure math and applie
by bordercases 8y ago
Not enough mathematics. A substantial chunk of these are derived by analogy from analytical domains which are kind of on the fringe between pure math and applied math, like game theory and financial theory. There, the models and their primitives being described are part of a more coherent body of knowledge that lets you apply the concept precisely.
I'm going to get a reply that "oh but reading this Farnam Street stuff helps build intuition" and you might very well be right, but this knowledge is only developed to its fullest extent when it's precise and considered deductively. Taking a microecon course made it difficult for me to stop seeing microecon for at least a year. Freakonomics wouldn't have been technical enough.
- jeffreyrogers 8y agoI don't think I agree. At least in most cases. It might be important to learn the math in order for the models to make sense, but once you learn the model you don't need the math. For example, most circuit designers don't use any math (other than simple arithmetic and algebra) when designing circuits because they have heuristics that allow them not to think about the math. In that case, thinking about the math just gets you bogged down in the details.