Anyone that has toyed with Magic Number 7 +/- 2, beyond G. A. Miller’s construct, discovers all too quickly, disappointingly, that in some instances it’s +3 and -1, or -1 and +3, or 6 instead of 7, or 8. And the magic evaporates into magical thinking. Which is neither. (Unless one is Joan Didion.) In the realm of so-called primitive people, the unschooled or ignorant, the psychologically disturbed, or just a bit kooky. Magic Number 7 stands alongside Ouji boards, Tarot cards, astrology, and psychics which can be amusing if one appreciates them for what they are, toys.
But, but isn’t seven a special number, and therefore, magical? More special than one? Or ten or twelve? Or pi – now, there’s an irrational number with practical applications. Nonetheless, seven is a good number in craps – until it’s a loser. And seven is the peoples of the world favorite lucky number. And one of those people might be the head of the IMF, Christine LaGarde.
In the year of Thomas Piketty, we also have the year of magical global economic thinking with power. Scarier than Ebola.
But I’m sticking with eight plus/minus three as the Ebola incubation period.
“But, but isn’t seven a special number, and therefore, magical?”
It’s prime, but then so is one,two,three, and five.
Possibly seven is a homophone to “scared” in some ancient language?
I’ll leave that determination up to the mathematicians.
In the social sciences “magical numbers” fall within whatever fetish or special meaning people invest in them. LaGarde has now wandered into Greenspan territory rattling on about “magical numbers.” The two of them might as well borrow a witch doctor’s rattle.
Gaaah! Damn spellcheck! Sacred not scared.
Reminds me of chartists obsession with Fibonacci numbers.
Or the christianists with 666 — something easy enough for the mathematically challenged to comprehend. But that three in one divinity thing still trips them up.