Longe viva Esperanto!

But seriously, English is a living language, an actual learning curve as graphed on a piece of paper is so rare that most people have never seen one (and those who do are academics who should be smart enough to notice context), and even your own selective quote states that the common usage is no longer what it used to be.

The advantage of using the tongue as the point of interface is that it contains one of the most dense configurations of sensory nerve fibers on the body. Thus, the effective “resolution” of the picture can be greater per unit area of the electrode array.

A learning curve plots performance over time. A steep learning curve implies rapid learning; if you want to suggest something’s hard to learn, you’d refer to a flat learning curve.

Frequently a “learning curve” is used to describe the effort required to acquire a new skill (e.g., expertise with a new tool) over a specific period of time.

In which case a steep curve means it’s hard. Since it’s contextually clear that this is meant here, there’s no need to complain.

From Wikipedia:

The familiar expression “steep learning curve” may refer alternately to rapid learning that is easy, or especially hard, or to steady progress that is increasingly difficult. Which is referred to needs to be clarified by context. The difference is specifically whether one is referring to the rate of learning or the rate of investment needed to learn.

Forgive me for insulting you, but pedantry is a character flaw, not a community service.

Don’t be coy; assuming you’re not of another sentient species, what’s your suggestion?

Originally it referred to quick progress in learning during the initial stages followed by gradually lesser improvements with further practice.[5] The progress may be measured in different ways, e.g. memory accuracy vs. the number of trials.[6] Over time, a different use of the metaphor has become common, in which a “steep” learning curve means that something requires a great deal of effort to learn, on the association of the word “steep” with a slope which is difficult to climb.

I complain about this common usage not because I get a charge out of scolding people on the internets, but because it obscures the meaning of what learning curves are. Of course I realize that everyone understands what was indicated here by context. But I wonder if most people who read “steep learning curve” and think “hard” would understand what they were looking at if they tried to read an actual learning curve?

If a steep learning curve can indicate “rapid learning that is easy, or especially hard, or to steady progress that is increasingly difficult,” then it’s hard to see how learning curves in general mean anything. But learning curves – real, plotted curves of X as a function of Y – DO mean something. Since I happen to like behavioral science, and scientific literacy, I consider it worthwhile to try to unmuddle the metaphor.

English is a living language, an actual learning curve as graphed on a piece of paper is so rare that most people have never seen one

The irony here is that I actually agree with the “living language” idea and think that it is totally normal for common usage to change the meaning of words over time. I resist it in this case because meaning is actually lost. I have no desire to “destroy expressive language” (hey, I *like* expressive language), but this is a case where one idea (physically climbing something steep is hard) is being substituted for another (a steep slope indicates a rapid rate of change). It’s true that actual learning curves are not a common feature of most people’s lives, but the concept is both useful and not really complicated, and this common usage of “steep learning curve” suggests exactly the opposite of how a real change function works. Why is it worth defending a misleading usage when it obscures a real and useful concept? Is the fact that learning curves are uncommon to the average person justify substituting a misleading idea instead of educating about the original one? If you’ve ever regretted the state of science education among the public, then it doesn’t seem like you can also defend new, misleading meanings of science terminology just because they’re common. The “steep = hard” sense of this expression only makes sense if you are ignorant of, or are ignoring/forgetting, what learning curves actually are, and I think telling people what they actually are is worth piping up about it in a comments section. (fwiw, I certainly didn’t intend to be rude to Maggie)

But I wonder if most people who read “steep learning curve” and think “hard” would understand what they were looking at if they tried to read an actual learning curve?

Probably – do you know anyone who’s actually been confused by the expression? I’m tired of trying to destroy expressive language because it might be hard to understand. Most people don’t actually need the help, and the ones who do probably won’t appreciate the effort.

To anon @8:

Is there someplace else that they could put that lollipop? I’m sure their target market for the device is just elated to have it, but I presume they’d be happier still if it didn’t go in their mouths.

I vaguely recall some author (Dennett?) mentioning something similar done on the stomach a while ago. The advantage the mouth has is sensitivity – the same nerve endings that make it less pleasant to have something there, will give you a much better idea of what that thing is.