I understand that the use of learnings is very controversial. Some say you can't use it, while others say, "there is nothing wrong with teachings, so why with learnings?".
I want to use learnings not as the action of learning something (a lesson) but as a list of things that are being learned and that have been learned.
Often the suggestion to replace learnings in this context is lessons.
1) the process: things that has been taught (directly or indirectly such as a life lesson)
2) the action: of learning
3) the result: the thing that has been learned
In all the three cases, a lesson is taught by someone or something and it has a direction or a goal, or is seen as having a kind of sense (a lesson of math makes you clever, a lesson of life wiser).
"Performing an art requires some complex learnings to survive"
"Species need to make some learnings"(epigenetics is a kind of learning/adaptation).
Don't you think "lesson" would be inappropriate? A) I heard that "we can't quantify a learning", but you do "teach lesson", and you can quantify a lesson (a general lesson can contain little lessons). So why not quantifying a learning that are not a lesson? The problem is to explain the difference between both since apparently there is no word that could define precisely (in a perfectly neutral way) what a learning is made of.
I am looking for a world that only keep the meaning 2 and 3 but that would not imply the teaching part: "several things have been learned, but no lesson has been taught (
not even what positive or negative "life lesson").
You would not talk about "evolutionary lessons" for instance. The things learned had no goals: learning just happened".
To illustrate this point, think about a fish. It did not really have to be taught to breath under water and to reproduce, but somehow by evolution the fish learned it, not strictly speaking at the individual scale but at the species scale. We could talk about "evolutionary skills". Those skills have been acquired without teaching but they are still in a way "learned" through many failed and successful adaptations and epigenetics which is a kind of innate learning.
It comes handy also when speaking about animal social learnings, at least when we consider the "learnings" that have been learned (and accumulated through generations) but that haven't been "taught" (not even even vaguely through positive or negative "life lessons". I'm talking about evolutionary skills, like the fish example).
Would you agree with the use of learnings in this case?
EDIT1: Imagine "learning" as a result (of a learning process). If it was commonly accepted in English, would you see the differences between some "social learnings" and some "social lessons"? I struggle to define precisely this difference (in french it's easy to see the difference between them, we have to words). I guess this "teaching" connotation (directly or indirectly) that bother me.
EDIT2: The topic might be tricky because it talks about the line between nature and nurture. Some believe that this line is becoming more and more blurry, some people start to think that they is no line at all (can we really change more easily our environment than our innate nature?). Imagine a kind of learning that would be half way between innate and nurture, or even a learning that would be more innate than "nurture" (like specific epigenetics "learnings"). Don't you think "learnings" would come handy to talk about this last one?