In a recent interview, Karpathy identifies a clear divergence between perceived learning and actual knowledge acquisition, asserting that the majority of online educational content is functionally āinfotainment,ā designed to be consumed effortlessly rather than digested laboriously. True learning, he argues, demands the āmental equivalent of sweating.ā
The current market is dominated by āinfotainmentāācontent that provides the feeling of learning but is actually entertainment. True learning requires significant mental effort, or the āmental equivalent of sweating.ā
This critique fundamentally misunderstands the modern attention economy; if our educational products arenāt entertaining enough to compete with the sheer volume of engaging digital media, the problem is our own institutionās boring delivery, not the audienceās lack of discipline. If knowledge is not sticky and shareable, it is strategically worthless.
This is the core tension. Weāve optimized for click-through rates and completion times in our mandatory training, but weāve stopped asking: What is the cognitive residue?
If learning is purely a measure of exposure, we are confusing the speed of the car with the distance traveled.
Our goal isnāt to make employees feel good about learning; itās to ensure they can execute complex, non-routine tasks under pressure.
If we accept that entertainment is now a mandatory delivery mechanism for knowledge, how do we establish quantitative metrics that reliably measure true behavioral change and long-term retention, separating them from the fleeting dopamine hit of mere engagement?
šØāPoll: How do we measure true learning retention from engaging corporate content?
About measuring learning efficacy
We must move beyond simple completion metrics and pioneer a new standard for Behavioral Learning Efficacy (BLE). Our strategy should define what constitutes a successful cognitive outcome in the era of infotainment.
A. Post-training self-assessment and completion rates. (The āVibeā Metric)
B. Mandatory, high-stakes testing tied to certification renewal. (The āEffortā Metric)
C. Measured reduction in post-training operational errors/incidents. (The āPerformanceā Metric)
D. 6-month follow-up case simulations requiring knowledge application. (The āRetentionā Metric)
šØāPoll: How do we measure true learning retention from engaging corporate content?
In a recent interview, Karpathy identifies a clear divergence between perceived learning and actual knowledge acquisition, asserting that the majority of online educational content is functionally āinfotainment,ā designed to be consumed effortlessly rather than digested laboriously. True learning, he argues, demands the āmental equivalent of sweating.ā
The current market is dominated by āinfotainmentāācontent that provides the feeling of learning but is actually entertainment. True learning requires significant mental effort, or the āmental equivalent of sweating.ā
This critique fundamentally misunderstands the modern attention economy; if our educational products arenāt entertaining enough to compete with the sheer volume of engaging digital media, the problem is our own institutionās boring delivery, not the audienceās lack of discipline. If knowledge is not sticky and shareable, it is strategically worthless.
This is the core tension. Weāve optimized for click-through rates and completion times in our mandatory training, but weāve stopped asking: What is the cognitive residue?
If learning is purely a measure of exposure, we are confusing the speed of the car with the distance traveled.
Our goal isnāt to make employees feel good about learning; itās to ensure they can execute complex, non-routine tasks under pressure.
Share
Leave a comment
Question:
If we accept that entertainment is now a mandatory delivery mechanism for knowledge, how do we establish quantitative metrics that reliably measure true behavioral change and long-term retention, separating them from the fleeting dopamine hit of mere engagement?
šØāPoll: How do we measure true learning retention from engaging corporate content?
About measuring learning efficacy
We must move beyond simple completion metrics and pioneer a new standard for Behavioral Learning Efficacy (BLE). Our strategy should define what constitutes a successful cognitive outcome in the era of infotainment.
A. Post-training self-assessment and completion rates. (The āVibeā Metric)
B. Mandatory, high-stakes testing tied to certification renewal. (The āEffortā Metric)
C. Measured reduction in post-training operational errors/incidents. (The āPerformanceā Metric)
D. 6-month follow-up case simulations requiring knowledge application. (The āRetentionā Metric)
Looking forward to your answers and comments,Yael Rozencwajg
Share
Leave a comment