Blog Journeys of a Lifelong Learner

Why is it that some learn quickly and others learn more slowly?

Why  is it that within a career there can be wide fluctuations in the rate of growth?

If growth were a linear function, where an increase of x in time or energy spent would always result in an increase of y in improvement realized, one would expect the relative values of x and y to be generally consistent among a broad sample range.

People who spend a certain number of years studying a particular topic should, it seems reasonable to expect, have a  certain level of competence. The reality is that there are broad ranges in achievement, regardless of time factors. Many factors influence achievement, and altering even a single factor can influence its output by of an order of magnitude.

Sometimes the amount of time spent studying a topic appears to be the differentiating factor between a high achiever and an incompetent party. This seems intuitive, but it is insufficient for explaining why two people with the same length of experience can have such dramatically different levels of competence. The quality of one's pursuit of growth is far more essential than the amount of time spent in it. (To be sure, a significant investment of time is required in the  mastery of anything.)

Let P be the level of performance. Let A be the area of performance. Let T be the amount of time. Let Q be the quality of learning.

The function of growth is closer to P(A) = T^Q than it is to P(A) = (1/Q)T.

The quality of one's learning is much more important than its duration.