* David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [06-11-2003 23:19]:
> > Psychology didn't turn the meaning upside down; the aeronatical
> > "learning curve" was given (if they were indeed first) different
> > quantities by the psychologists. Therefore, both learning curves are
> > not comparable.
>
> ...and:
>
> > Well, original or not, the "psychological" version (progress vs. time
> > or attepts) is what Allister referred to. And my point merely was
> > that he misused it. Nothing more.
>
> Well, if the psychologists can give different quantities to their curve
> to suit their purposes, I see no reason why we normal people can't give
> different quantities as well in order to suit our own purposes.
Hm.. AFAICT there is only one psychological definition, with one set
of quantities. A psychologist misusing the term is not the same as
giving it a new definition. But perhaps my explanation above was
unclear..
And I object against the use of the term "normal" people ;-)
> What I'm getting at here is that even though my opinion is currently
> that the Psychological definition is probably the better one to use,
> the position that most people unknowingly take is far from
> indefensible, especially considering this Breaking News (TM) noting
> that the Psychological definition itself is psycho.
Yeah, you're probably right in this, but I'm just such a purist that I
want to spread the correct use instead of advocating and justifying
the wrong one. So I agree with most of what you're saying above,
which can also be found in the link everything started with, except
for the last line; I really thinkt the psychological definition is
the one and only correct one, and that everything else really doesn't
make sense ;-)
> > That's bashing? Ha. Then in your opinion, I must have been
> > bashing Allister.. Right.
>
> There are different degrees of bashing, you know. I certainly wouldn't
> say you were ramming a 10-ton dumptruck into him ;-)
I'd say I was tickling him ;-)
[...]
> Now, I don't want to get in the way of any battles that psychologist
> dudes may be fighting, so I'd rather just steer clear of terms like
> "learning curve." However, I see no point in using the "correct"
> definition unless I'm willing to enter the battle. I'm not.
If you / all would use the correct definition, there wouldn't be a
"battle" here / anywhere ;-)
> Convincing people to listen to the W3C is hard enough for my taste.
Yeah ;-)
> If I "invented" it, I'd be simply reinventing the "common" learning
> curve with exactly the same quantities that the "common" learning
> curve already has.
Which, as stated, I think doesn't make sense, but let's not get into
that again..
[...]
> Quite frankly, I'm a tad disappointed that people in the computer field
> are more interested in fighting others' battles than their own, even
> when their own are more "right."
Well, for me the computer field isn't the thing that matters most to
me. Yes, I confess, I have a lot of other, perhaps in the long run
more appealing (to me) interests..
> > I try to stick to facts and defnition as much as possible. Your
> > examples of people misusing the term don't frighten me: in Holland,
> > saying "Alice is better as Bob" when meaning "Alice is better than
> > Bob" is common practice.
>
> That's common in at least two other languages. It's wrong in both
> British English and American English, though.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant "in the Dutch language"..
Alice is beter dan Bob vs. Alice is beter als Bob..
I translated the wrong use of als / dan to the English as / than to
make it more comprehensable, in which I've failed miserably ;-)
> > We're at the point of making it an official
> > rule.
>
> Official rules of English in Holland don't frighten me.
But official rules of Dutch in Holland frighten me, as do probably
official rules of English in the U.S. / U.K. ;-)
> I don't have to start worrying until our good friends at Webster
> decide to put it in their dictionary ... and when they do, I can
> point to the Oxford dictionary, which is a lot better at keeping
> crap out of our language. (Webster specifically states that their
> dictionary follows common use, and that the reverse is not intended
> to be the case.)
OT: in Holland, we have one dictionary which is authorative. Is
there one authorative for the English language?
> > But for me, that's no reason to accept it (of course, until it
> > becomes official).
>
> I don't care much for democratically-decided stuff. Democracy only
> works when all voters are well-educated in the issues at hand. Since
> nobody's educated in everything and most people hate to opt-out of a vote
> (especially with these slogans calling refusal to vote "unpatriotic"),
> Democracy doesn't work.
I agree, really. Back to ancient Greece.
[...]
> > > Simply pointing to an earlier use which differs from the common one
> > > is not enough, as we now clearly see.
> >
> > Pointing to many incorrect uses (abuses), followed by stating that the
> > term is incorrect is worse.
>
> worse than what?
Than me pointing to an ...
> Anyway, pointing to many abuses from within the community pushing the
> "correct" definition is not bad in any way, for the purposes I was
> using it for. We're not within that community, so there's no reason for
> us to fight the battles that they themselves are not organized enough
> to fight.
Who says I'm not? I am *not*, but you didn't know that. I came close
to that field (study), and am close / in some others too ;-)
[...]
> I guess the best conclusion here is: don't use the term "learning curve."
> If you hear somebody else using it, pretend you didn't hear the words
> "learning curve" being used.
I should agree, as my beloved web site (har, har ;-) points out too,
but it's against my nature, I guess..
> If the guy tries to force you into a corner, pretend you didn't know
> that _that's_ what "learning curve" meant.
> If he tries to explain what it means, _then_ you can "let him have it!"
> This way, you're not actively fighting somebody else's war unless you're
> sucked into a battle - in that case, you're fighting that battle and
> nothing else.
Hmm, being my field or not, if I know something is wrong, I usually
say it. *Not* to bash, not to play mister wise guy, not to be
arrogant, but to spread some knowledge (that's the closest to
expressing how I feel about it in English as I can get)..
> If you want to fight a battle just for the hell of it, though,
> please do the computer world a favor and pick one in the computer
> field, so you at least do us some good in the process.
Sorry, can't do that. I don't stick to fields. I don't consider
myself a computer expert, although I have far above average knowledge
of the field. If a friend of mine, who doesn't have that knowledge,
makes an erroneous remark about computers, I correct / teach him, just
the same as I tried to do here.. To spread some knowledge, I guess..
[perhaps the excessive use of smileys in this post speaks in favor of
thinking about closing this thread? ;-) ]
--
René Clerc - (rene@xxxxxxxx) - PGP: 0x9ACE0AC7
Retteb sif lahd, noces ehttub, but the second half is better.
-A palindrome
Attachment:
pgp46mGuHA6lH.pgp
Description: PGP signature