"learnings" to talk about things that were learned but that were not taught

Question

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.

Lessons implies:
1) the process: things that have 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).

Some examples:

• 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? I heard that "we can't quantify a [single] learning", but we can "teach a lesson", and you can quantify a lesson (a general lesson can contain little lessons). So why not quantifying a learning that is not a lesson? The problem is to explain the difference between both since apparently no word could define precisely what a learning is made of.

I am looking for a word that only keeps 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 breathe underwater 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 hasn't been "taught" (not 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 since we use two 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 are no line at all (can we really change more easily our environment than our innate nature?). Imagine a kind of learning that would be halfway 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?

Answer 1

Learning as a noun is very unnatural. Using it would instantly mark you as someone who speaks English as a second language. The appropriate noun to use is lesson. I don't think there is any logical reason why it is unnatural, because, as is so often the case, language is unpredictable.

You say that lesson or lessons implies intentionality, but this is not the case. Neither does the verb to learn imply an intentional teacher. This is asymmetrical: both to teach and teachings are intentional, but it is equally valid to say that something was learnt in intentional and non-intentional contexts.

The ability of fish to breath in water would not be considered something that is learnt - it is simply innate. Other animals certainly do learn, and can be taught. As with humans, it is appropriate to say that animals can learn skills even when not being intentionally taught.

Answer 2

"there is nothing wrong with teachings so why with learnings?"

To which I should respond, it might be nice if English had such an expression, but it doesn't.

The good news: "Lessons" can cover a lot more than formal sessions of teaching: you have "life-lessons". "Never do such-and-such at poker", and after losing your shirt you have learned a important lesson. So I assure you that you can use "lessons" for your 2) and 3) without fear of committing yourself to their being taught by some guy with chalk-dust on his jacket and leather patches on his elbows (or with horizontal green ears...).

I am unhappy with the idea of the fish "learning", but this is another issue. Come back to that if you want.

Answer 3

I'm brand new here so am cautiously, I hope, going to get my toes wet. To teach is a deliberate act. One can teach many different things on a single subject, therefore "teachings". Teachings are also a definable body. However, to learn, while it requires participation of some sort (even if only, for instance, learning about gravity by falling off a cliff), is like to breathe - it is a process which mostly takes place outside of our direct control. To talk about "learnings" is like talking about "breathings" - the air we breathe becomes an idiosyncratic part of a larger system; the thing learned becomes, and only functions as part of, the larger system of knowledge into which it is inducted. Further, while we may all be taught the same thing, what we learn is at least somewhat idiosyncratic. So while it is very popular among school administrators in our area, it still sounds pretentious and awkward to me. As I said, I'm very much a student and welcome correction on this.