Here is an article I read:
I don’t have any problem with applying math to fashion or anything, but this article is ridiculous:
- “Mathematicians”? No, one mathematician. One mathematician that, in fact, is a mathematics honors graduate who now hosts a game show in Australia (yes, I googled her). I don’t require letters after your name to be a “mathematician,” but come on, a single expository paper as evidence may be lacking.
- “Stumble upon”? Other than pi, is there any nontrivial number more discussed in pop science than the Golden Ratio? And applying that ratio to the subject of subjective beauty…that’s as standard an application of the Golden Ratio there is. Stumbling upon this is like “stumbling upon” putting butter on your hand to more quickly escape a handshake; sure, maybe no one ever thought of it before, but butter is one obvious option for achieving a less frictionful interaction. And in this case, there isn’t even an alternative to the Golden Ratio.
- This article has caused me to capitalize “Golden Ratio” in this post. This is a terrible turn of events.
- “Ratio based on da Vinci’s Mona Lisa”? Really? This is where this ratio comes from? The Greeks, Sumerians and Ancient Chinese were just a bunch of innumerate chumps that lucked out once in a while? This makes it sound like someone said, “Hey, you know what’s beautiful? The Mona Lisa. That’s beautiful. Let’s measure her face.” And thus, the golden ratio.
- Ok, ok. Maybe it’s just a bad headline; that wouldn’t be the first. But look into the article at this newly defined term “Golden Number.” A woman’s personal Golden Number is defined as a woman’s shoulder height, plus heel length, divided by the golden ratio. What? Talk about an overly bombastic name. The whole point of “golden” in “golden ratio” is to use the fact that gold is special to indicate that the ratio is special, unique even, with a myriad of important applications. “Golden Number”? Not special, not unique, severely limited in scope. How about “Personal Suggested Sartorial Length”? Go crazy and replace “suggested” with “perfect”; I don’t care. But golden number? If I had a test for lack of creativity, there would be one question: “What should you call this term?” If you answer “golden number”, you pass with honors. (P.S. I’m guessing this name was invented by the “mathematician” that “stumbled upon” this dress length formula, so there are no innocents here.)
- As a friend pointed out, women generally have multiple shoes, probably with varying heel heights. If you have 13 shoes, do you have 13 Golden Numbers? It’s not even a number special for the individual!
- Besides, “Golden number” is taken, making this neologistic patricide.
- In case you were wondering, “perfect pins” are nice-looking legs. This is just an informational bullet.
- To return to razzing the “mathematician” (which I continue to put in quotes because I am an ungenerous, mean snark), what kind of discovery is this!??! This is a two step thought: beauty -> golden ratio -> adjust for big head. I’m thinking this was the result of procrastination. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she looked at several formulae, some involving variables other than height of a woman, like width, stance, head-to-body proportion, strappiness of heels, etc. and measured their results against accepted images of beauty. I don’t know. BUT THAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH THE FREAKING ARTICLE. There is no indication to me that this was not just made up by the one person they found in Australia that can do calculus and wear form-fitting dresses. I know I have to take the research on faith to some extent, but come on. Come on.
- Ok, this is nitpicky, but when did we start “arm[ing people] with tools”? What are women going to do with their “golden number”, extirpate me with the visage of their perfect pins? (Yes, I just wanted to use the word “extirpate” and am allowed to slightly stretch the meaning since the “mathematician” has taken such liberty with “arm”.)
- As a side note, I cannot take any article seriously that suggests a women wear cropped jackets and high-waisted pants; I don’t care what your virtual waistline might be.
- On the other hand, the last line of the article, so simple and set apart as it is, enthralls me.
- I’m not making points anymore. Just sentences. Well, not even that.
- Seriously, though, this is math in the popular press. (I know it’s the Australian press, but the U.S. is not better; it just has less of an accent.) How is the layman supposed to value math when this is the treatment given by the information recorders and conveyors of our society? How is he supposed to have any appreciation for the work that goes into math when they report no work, just decree truth? How does this inspire any young people to try math and not think of it as stodgy? (It looks like fashion applications are played out because, according to this article, this “mathematician” found the number, so we’re done. Maybe a little work can done in its application to stockings.) Maybe enthralling youth is not the responsibility of this journalist but why, then, write this article as anything other than fashion advice?
