If the equation "learning curve = acquired knowledge / elapsed time" is true, why do I regularly hear difficult tasks being described as having a "steep learning curve"? Mathematically speaking, a task which takes a long time to learn would have a flatter curve than a task which is quickly learned.
Is a task with a "steep learning curve" necessarily difficult? I always thought it meant a large numerator, that is, too much to learn in a short time, which would also give large values for "learning curve" according to your equation.
I think thowens is right. Whoever coined the phrase was associating "steep" with "difficult" and simply did not make a diagram of the graph he was thinking of .Fuzzy thinking.
One thing about this group is that it can completely destroy your impressions of words.
I honestly felt it meant (as I said above) too much learning in too short a time - therefore a steep climb to get to a plateau where you could be productive. That was how I'd always interpreted it, anyway!
Anyone coining a new cliché should be required to have degrees in math, astronomy, mediæval history, art history, philosophy, biology and astrophysics at the very least. Probably quantum mechanics, too.
When I picture "the learning curve" graph, the x-axis is "time" and the y-axis is "proficiency". A skill with a steep learning curve is one where the graph skims the x-axis for a while, but at some point (when enlightenment is reached) the graph shoots up, with proficiency increasing exponentially. Chess (and other strategy games) are like this - much easier for an expert to improve her game than a novice. Games like Othello and Go, on the other hand have a graph where proficiency rises quickly at first, but soon plateaus (or continues rising, but slowly) - "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master" kind of thing. Saying that something difficult has a steep learning curve is misusing the phrase, not misdrawing the graph, IMHO.
Hmm...that's a good idea, Faldage!
This is great - I had no idea how different everyone's mental images of learning curves were!
" I couldn't fail to disagree less "
Dear Faldage: How marvelously confusing.
just what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less. The question is, which is to be master...
H. Dumpty
Linguistic Philosopher and Free Lance Fool
Dr. Bill helpfully comments: Dear Faldage: How marvelously confusing.
Aw, shucks, Dr. Bill, just doin' muh job.
Now there's glory for you!
Nothing like a good glory to polish off a Thursday (or fire up a Friday for that matter).
>equation "learning curve = acquired knowledge / elapsed time"
I think you equation has an error in it. Instead of elapsed time it should be the time to some deadline. For example, taking on a new position possessing a lot of complexities and being told to learn as much as you can before the incumbent retires. That is a steep learning curve. The opposite would be if you were elected to the back benches, where all you must master is the art of standing up on occasion as directed by the whip.
Socrates said: "Now I know how little I know." Is this where the "curve" becomes a complete "dive"?
Difficult tasks have a steeper learning curve than simple ones when the time in which the task is to be learnt is not changed. In this situation the denominator (time) remains constant, whereas the numerator (knowledge) increases. For the learning curve to retain the same gradient, time taken for learning needs to increase in proportion to the difficulty of the task.
To me, undergoing a steep learning curve relates more to the time necessary to accomplish the task, rather than the difficulty of the task itself. Even an easy task will have a steep learning curve if it has to be completed quickly. The denominator (time) is crucial in determining the gradient of the learning curve, while the numerator (knowledge) has little influence.
Saying that something difficult has a steep learning curve is misusing the phrase, not misdrawing the
graph
Unless..
we can look at the (so called) inverse function, giving the time required to obtain a given skill.
This one is very steep when a large amount of time is needed to reach a given skill.
Instead of elapsed time it should be the time to some deadline.
Fascinating how opinions here seem to segretate neatly into two classes:
a. The pragmatic view: The steepness of the curve is imposed by the task. The level of skill to be attained is clearly defined. Learning is learning to do.
b. The philosophical view: The learning process is open ended: learning is learning to know. The steepness of the curve is a (positive) subjective experience, a measure of success.
too much learning in too short a time
Interesting that everyone carries an image of a graph line – where does that come from? (don’t say 0,0!)
Surely the meaning is little to do with time but everything to do with effort – so the equation, plotting Effort on the Y axis, is more like:
Effort = Accomplishment³
Thus the implication is that to gain each further increment of accomplishment costs an escalation of effort, I reckon.
But a quick google shows this is a term now so badly hackneyed by the computer industry that we should probably all try to excise it from our repertoire anyway!
Effort = Accomplishment³
giving an exponential curve. I think the "curve"="graph" just makes more sense than "curve"="a bend in the road", but how can a (graph)curve be steep? The average gradient (or a straight line) can be steep, but not the curve itself.
I've always taken it to mean the amount to learn is a lot for the time available, whether that be a simple task in 5 minutes or a major skill in two weeks.
But I agree, it has become a cliche, and we should avoid cliches like the plague.
Rod
In reply to:
Anyone coining a new cliché should be required to have degrees in math, astronomy, mediæval history, art history, philosophy, biology and astrophysics at the very least. Probably quantum mechanics, too.
I understand Magdalen College, Oxford, now offers a bachelor's degree in quantum linguistics. ;|
...or was it Quondam Linguini?