<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: OT: learning curve (was: a little comparison of procmail and maildrop)



On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:27:51PM +0100, René Clerc wrote:

> * David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [04-11-2003 18:45]:
> 
> > > Time *or attempts (number of trials)*.
> > 
> > Where did you get that information from?  The URL doesn't give any
> > evidence, and in fact doesn't even make an unambiguous assertion of
> > said fact.

Just for fun, I decided to run your search on Google.  Here are some of
the more interesting results:

wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?learning+curve
There, it's noted that Psychology didn't invent the term, but rather stole
it from aironautical engineering, and then turned its meaning upside down.
Neither of those uses agrees with the popular "meaning," but I'd hesitate
to call the Psychology version "original," certainly after seeing that.

http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/69/65.htm
Here, we have another one claiming Psychology to be the original
definition.  It should come as no surprise, then, that the author goes
on to bash computer people for misusing it.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb98/feder.html
Well, now there's an interesting phenomenum: how about the APA itself
misusing the term it stole from the airplane engineers?

http://www.uwic.ac.uk/ltsu/documents/5th%20July%20Conference%20Handouts%20Dominic%20Upton.doc
Well, here we have another example of people well-versed in developmental
psychology abusing what they claim to be their own term.


That's three interesting results on the first page alone (10 total
results).  If you're going to call the common use wrong, we might as well
call the Psychology use wrong, as well; as it's measuring the inverse of
what it should be.  The common use measures the right stuff, at least,
even if it screws up the axis order (which economists do all the time
anyway, as I already pointed out).

My take on the whole subject is that one shouldn't complain that others
are using something in a wrong way unless he's willing to do enough
research to get to the bottom of the whole thing.  Simply pointing to
an earlier use which differs from the common one is not enough, as we
now clearly see.

 - Dave

BTW - It's worth noting that the idea of "steep" vs. "shallow" as applied
to a learning curve still have the opposite meaning of the common use,
even with the engineering definition of a learning curve.  However,
I now reserve the right to laugh at any Psychologist dude who tries to
tell me my use is wrong - his is also ;-P

-- 
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler.  You've seen what food processors do to food, right?

Please visit this link:
http://rotter.net/israel

Attachment: pgp7gGcGZ9gHB.pgp
Description: PGP signature