3 ms·

If you're writing entire chapters on 'igon values' then obviously you've never read a single page on the topic. I'm sorry but this is not about forgetting to cl

If you're writing entire chapters on 'igon values' then obviously you've never read a single page on the topic. I'm sorry but this is not about forgetting to click 'spell check'.

credo 17y ago
>>If you're writing entire chapters on 'igon values' Pinker's review says thatthe book "quotes an expert speaking about an 'igon value' (that’s eigenvalue,.." I haven't read the book. Are you sure that Pinker was downplaying the "igon value" issue and that Gladwell really wrote "entire chapters on 'igon values'" ? Which entire chapters are about "igon values" ?
- dgabriel 17y ago
  There aren't entire chapters. It appears in a quote by a mathematician. Gladwell isn't trying to explain mathematics poorly, he's transcribing poorly.
BRadmin 17y ago
Here's the original New Yorker article: http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm
geebee 17y ago
I agree, the "igon value" thing was a more revealing error than a minor typo. Gladwell is a talented quick study, by necessity. In the New Yorker article, he was just using "gaussian" and "igon value" for color, to give a sense of the mathematical sophistication of the quants. In this case, the ploy was obvious to people with a modicum of a math background, because "eigenvalues" and "gaussian distributions" are not particularly obscure topics - they're something almost any undergrad in a quant-ish field will encounter (early, in lower division classes). Furthermore, by mis-spelling it, Gladwell does suggest that he implies a greater understanding of a field than he actually has (something quick studies are good at, including many progrmmers, which is probably why folks on this board are so attuned to it). That said, it was a minor part of the article. This shouldn't have made it past the editors.

If you're writing entire chapters on 'igon values' then obviously you've never read a single page on the topic. I'm sorry but this is not about forgetting to click 'spell check'.

credo 17y ago

>>If you're writing entire chapters on 'igon values' Pinker's review says thatthe book "quotes an expert speaking about an 'igon value' (that’s eigenvalue,.." I haven't read the book. Are you sure that Pinker was downplaying the "igon value" issue and that Gladwell really wrote "entire chapters on 'igon values'" ? Which entire chapters are about "igon values" ?

dgabriel 17y ago
There aren't entire chapters. It appears in a quote by a mathematician. Gladwell isn't trying to explain mathematics poorly, he's transcribing poorly.

BRadmin 17y ago

Here's the original New Yorker article: http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm

geebee 17y ago

I agree, the "igon value" thing was a more revealing error than a minor typo. Gladwell is a talented quick study, by necessity. In the New Yorker article, he was just using "gaussian" and "igon value" for color, to give a sense of the mathematical sophistication of the quants. In this case, the ploy was obvious to people with a modicum of a math background, because "eigenvalues" and "gaussian distributions" are not particularly obscure topics - they're something almost any undergrad in a quant-ish field will encounter (early, in lower division classes). Furthermore, by mis-spelling it, Gladwell does suggest that he implies a greater understanding of a field than he actually has (something quick studies are good at, including many progrmmers, which is probably why folks on this board are so attuned to it). That said, it was a minor part of the article. This shouldn't have made it past the editors.