Talk:Engelbart's law

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Engelbart's law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 12 July 2013 by reviewer Aggie80 (talk · contribs).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's Not a "Law" Because It's Wrong.[edit]

Things only get better for a while. Then they uniformly level off -- unless, like cancers, they destroy their supporting substrate or circumstances, in which case they self-destruct.

If we're looking for capital-l "Laws," it would make sense to go with the S-curve, it seems to me. If we're looking for observations about intrinsic rates of human performance, I think the dominant one would be that they vary, sometimes "increasing," sometimes "decreasing." I use quotation marks to mean that the rate of anything resides in the description, not in the thing or action itself. If you get more wheat out of a field that may be an increase in wheat per unit area or a decrease in the productivity of fertilizer, water, or labour. Whether or not it's an increase in your crop of wheat depends on how many fields you have planted, not just on the one.

Parenthetically, I've sorry to have just found out that Doug died a couple of years ago. He was a good and creative man, and I don't for a moment blame him for the fact that people have taken his sound observation -- that any improvement makes previously impossible changes possible -- into an unsound "law." The bogosity is ours, the enthusiasts', not Doug's.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean?[edit]

What do 'the intrinsic rate of human performance is exponential', 'Humans have long performed at exponential levels', 'visualization of this exponential phenomenon', etc, etc, mean? I know what 'exponential' means; I mean I *really* know what it means, I'm not just one of those idiots (growing in number?) who pepper their conversation with it because it sound clever. And, because I know what it means I can make no sense of the items quoted. Engelbart was obviously a clever fellow, so if he came up with a law let's be told what it it is. I can't help but wonder if 'law' is being used for the same reason that 'exponential' is: just because it sounds clever (there is a growing list of such words: 'demographic', 'methodology', 'iconic', ...). 86.142.126.226 (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]