Learning Curve

[Anonymous]

(Inspired by a comment in another thread).

I've never really understood the use of the term "learning curve".

To me, a "steep" learning curve ought to be one where a lot is learned in a short time – i.e. relatively quick to learn. A long learning curve would be something that takes a long while to learn.

When I see these terms used though, it seems (to me) that people mean the opposite. Is there a generally accepted meaning? Is it just me that's out to lunch (wouldn't be surprised).

 

 

Edited By Peter Greene on 03/10/2023 19:17:08

[Anonymous]

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

I think a steep learning curve means there is a lot TO BE learned in a short time, rather than a lot IS learned in a short time.

Rob

[Anonymous]

I take a steep learning curve to mean that an awful lot has to be learnt before anything, even simple things, can be done.

Andrew

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Well-put, Rob & Andrew 

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/10/2023 19:51:49

[Anonymous]

OK, I get it now.

(Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "difficult – or easy – to learn". In fact, I suspect we would have a few decades ago).

[Anonymous]

No, it's more subtle than that. The learning in a steep curve may be conceptually easy, but there is an awful lot of it before one can do anything at all.

Andrew

[Robin GrahamParticipant @robingraham42208]

Posted by Peter Greene on 03/10/2023 21:43:54:

[…]

(Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "difficult – or easy – to learn". In fact, I suspect we would have a few decades ago).

Possibly, but it turns out that the expression was first used (in English) in 1903 – the concept originated in 1885 apparently, but in a specific technical sense it seems (Wikipedia).

I'd never really thought about this before. I had just imagined trudging up a hill and using a lot of effort to achieve little horizontal progress ('proficiency' )and hence arrived at the conventional meaning. You put time (or effort if you like) on the the horizontal axis and proficiency on the vertical which led to the 'wrong' interpretation of the expression. It's just a matter of how you label the axes surely. There is precedent for your view – in 1897 William Bryan and Noble Harter published a study of the speed which someone learned telegraphy:

Time on the horizontal axis, so the 'learning curve' is steep on the easy bit.

Every day is a school day as they say!

Robin

 

Edited By Robin Graham on 04/10/2023 00:03:23

Edited By Robin Graham on 04/10/2023 00:20:36

Edited By Robin Graham on 04/10/2023 00:21:14

Edited By Robin Graham on 04/10/2023 00:27:06

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Robin Graham on 04/10/2023 00:02:39:

Posted by Peter Greene on 03/10/2023 21:43:54:

[…]

(Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "difficult – or easy – to learn". In fact, I suspect we would have a few decades ago).

Possibly, but it turns out that the expression was first used (in English) in 1903 – the concept originated in 1885 apparently, but in a specific technical sense it seems (Wikipedia).

I'd never really thought about this before. I had just imagined trudging up a hill and using a lot of effort to achieve little horizontal progress ('proficiency' )and hence arrived at the conventional meaning. …

Connecting 'steep' and 'curve' in terms of gradient hadn't occurred to me! I took it in the sense of 'this bill is a bit steep', meaning too much, or excessive.

As no-one knows how many words the English language has it's not surprising we don't know where they all came from, let alone agree on what they mean.

Anyone else noticed 'gotten' is creeping back into British English? Supplanted here a few hundred years by the simpler 'got', and apart from 'forgotten', abandoned by the mother tongue. Stayed current in North America though, and now we've gotten it back…

Dave

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

As Rob and Andrew. Steep to me means it is very hard-going for a (short?) time at that point of the learning curve. If insufficient stamina, at a high rate of energy use, you might never get to the top of the hill (to the ‘plateau’ or less arduous part of the curve). Falling back to the bottom of the hill might mean the job is just too much for the individual concerned.

[mark costello 1Participant @markcostello1]

A learning curve is usually as steep as falling off a very high cliff. One step and You are off to the races.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Hmmmm. Where does this leave that companion cliche, “ahead of the curve”?

There seem two meanings of the “learning curve” itself.

One is that difficulty and advancement rises w.r.t time, which suggests if the curve is concave then either:

– the subject becomes harder to learn. Or:

– one’s progress rises more rapidly w.r.t., by accumulated knowledge and experience.

Not the same because our individual limits affect the function, and may bring us to a convex profile (slowing), even a plateau (stasis at that level) followed by decline (the subject is becoming personally too hard)

.

So to “ahead of the curve”.

Since if the graph is rising with time, anywhere later than any point on the line is below the line. (If above it is behind the line, i.e. on a curve steeper than that of the original, by either of the foregoing definitions.)

So I submit that if one is “ahead” of the curve, it means one finds the subject much harder to learn than one’s peers do, to the same level. Or at best, is simply taking longer to study it.

If however the graph is declining, I submit being “ahead” of it means one continues to be more knowledgeable than those on that part of the curve.

No further questions, M’lud.

 

[Author]

Posts