Talk:Learning curve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suppose I need to acquire 100 units of knowledge between time 0 and time 1, 90 units between time 1 and time 2, 70 units between time 2 and time 3, 40 units between time 3 and time 4, and 0 units between time 4 and time 5. It follows that I need to have accumulated a total of 100 units by time 1, a total of 190 units by time 2 (i.e. 100 + 90), a total of 260 units by time 3 (i.e. 100 + 90 + 70), a total of 300 units by time 4 (i.e. 100 + 90 + 70 + 40), and a total of 300 units by time 5 (i.e. 100 + 90 + 70 + 40 + 0). Where the X axis represents time and the Y axis represents the total number of units that I need to have accumulated, we have a steep curve.

Assuming it takes more effort to acquire 100 units of knowledge than 0 units of knowledge, the implication is that a lot more effort has had to be expended during the first stage than the last.

The reverted paragraph speaks about a singe aspect: two opposite interpretations: "easy vs. difficult" learning. The alleged "third" meaning speaks about different interpretations of the "learning cirve". If you want to add it, do it in a separate seciton and provide a reference admissible in wikipedia. There are several meanings of the expression. You are welcome to add it as long as you provide valid references. `'mikka 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New section duly added. I'm not sure what sort of reference you want though. Perhaps you can explain by referencing your own paragraph 'Over time ... difficult to climb'. 194.221.133.226 09:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. From your writing style I guess you are not a 8-year old boy and I assume you know what the term "reference" means: an indication to the source of the information you add to the article. I also gave you a link to wikipedia rules about which references are admissible, just click at the wikilink. Finally, the article already has examples how references are formatted. Please explain in more detail what is is unclear to you. `'mikka 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you wanted a reference to a) an authoritative statement that the expression is sometimes used in the way I've described or b) an explicit example of its being used in this way. I'm not sure I can find an authoritative statement, as my knowledge of this usage is based on listening and discussing rather than formal research, but I've supplied an explicit example. I can also supply implicit examples, i.e. examples where to attribute any other meaning to the speaker would be to contravene the principle of charity; but perhaps this sort of evidence wouldn't be deemed sufficiently solid.

Incidentally, I'm not sure Dr Smith's comments support your contention that this is a "popular misapprehension" that has become "widespread", but I shan't take this any further.

I've tried to rewrite "my" paragraph so that it's more relevant to what goes before, but I'll leave it to you from now on, provided you retain my meaning. 194.221.133.226 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Just like you, I find it different to provide a reference to a really authoritative source about the use/abuse of the term. I am not sure which part you object: "misapprehension" or "widespread". I may agree with the judgement "misapprehension", since it is not uncommon for words to change their meaning. But as for "widespread", there is no doubt. While the "correct" meaning may be found in many scientific articles dedicated specifically to cognitive science, in popular parlance I'd say 90% of usage is "incorrect". As for the reference you provided, unfortunately is is not very good, since the weblink refers to an IP address of storage, hence cannot be permanent. What is more, the document clearly gives a very strange definition: "Learning curve is the time it takes for a person to learn a new task and perform it competently". So I am removing it, sorry. Fortunately, this is a collaborative project, and I hope eventually someone will provide a good reference. I also modified/expanded your last change. `'mikka 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain in layman's terms what an "IP address of storage" is and why the fact that it "cannot be permanent" is a problem? That will help me look for something better. (Incidentally, I totally agree that the definition given of "learning curve" is odd. It's the following sentence, about "steep learning curve", that's the important one. I put "Search for "learning curve"" simply because it's the glossary entry for "learning curve" that contains the relevant use of "steep learning curve".)

Please see the wikipedia policy about reliable sources for all future questions. The issue of permanence is because we want wikipedia be useful many years to follow. The reference in question is from a webpage whose addres starts not from www.something.dot.somethnig, but from digits, like in you signature, indicating that this is a temporary storage, not intended for access of others. It became visible most probably becaause of the neglect of inexperience of their system administrator. `'mikka 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You say, "But as for "widespread", there is no doubt. While the "correct" meaning may be found in many scientific articles dedicated specifically to cognitive science, in popular parlance I'd say 90% of usage is "incorrect"." You may well not doubt this, but unless you provide supporting references, your claim is, like mine, supported by nothing more than your own experience. A few misuses of a phrase in a single article, plus one man's observation of this misuse, don't constitute evidence that the mistake is popular or widespread. Therefore, I've provisionally removed "popular" and substituted "emerged in at least one place" for "become widespread". 194.221.133.226 10:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Only I took the liberty to remove "at least in one place", because it very strongly reminds a joke about a mathematician and sheep in Schotland `'mikka 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit: You probably thought I removed your addition. In fact, I expanded it. Please re-read carefully the paragraph starting "A yet another specific..." `'mikka 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrible joke, good edit.

Regarding my addition, I had indeed missed that you'd expanded on it in your "A yet another specific ... " paragraph, which is fine. So I've deleted the most recent version of my paragraph, which obviously duplicated what you'd written in the "A yet another specific ... " paragraph. Good grief. 194.221.133.226 10:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my link removed

I guess I am not sure I understand why my link to my article Conquering the Learning Curve was removed & why it does not meet the guidelines. It is an article about the Learning Curve, that is what this page is. It is my interpretation on the Learning Curve & how it affects the way I learn. It is the Learning Curve explained so that it is easily understandable. There are many people who are afraid to learn something new & Conquering the Learning Curve is something that many people can relate to. The article is not an ad, promotion or a way to get external links to increase my page rank it is an link to an article I wrote about Conquering the Learning Curve & how it is not all that bad. Could some body please explain to me how & why it is not relevant? Lacurcio 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The key here you uttered yourself is "It is my interpretation". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everyone can write, but only following basic rules. In this case the policies are "No original research" and "Reliable sources". Since you did not provide any proofs that you an expert in the area, your AssCon is not a reputable source for wikipedia. If "your interpretation" is based on some books or articles you have read, please cite these books. `'Míkka 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)