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