although I have never met Bateson or Argyris, since I used to teach
Bateson's typology of learning in my critical thinking class, I thought I
might could contribute to the discussion of them.
My understanding of Learning 0, I, II, & III is that
Learning 0 is when no change in response to a given stimulus
occurs between time A and B. A whistle causes the same reaction at time
1 as at time 2 (Bateson's eg.) Graphically:
o
I
o
Learning I is when a change in response within a set occurs
between time A and time B. Learning a foreign language would be an
example, as at time A there would only be one classification for a door,
for example, while at time B the person could choose between "door" and
"puerta" (both members of the same set of descriptions). Graphically:
o
/ \
o o
Learning II is when there is learning about _sets_ of Learning I,
not just learning within sets. Learning _how to learn_ a foreign
language (i.e. learning skills generalizable to the task of learning many
different foreign languages; often occurs after a number of languages
have been learned) would be an example. Graphically:
o
/ \
/ \
[-------] [--------]
[ooooooo] [oooooooo]
[ooooooo] [oooooooo]
Learning III is learning about choosing between sets of Learning
II, and (it seems to me) is the process of paradigm change, as paradigms
shape the choice of sets of responses. This would explain Bateson's
using religious conversion as an example in his book. Graphically:
o
/ \
/ \
[-----------------------] [------------------------]
[ooooo] [ooooo] [ooooooo] [ooooo] [oooooo] [ooooooo]
[ooooo] [ooooo] [ooooooo] [ooooo] [oooooo] [ooooooo]
Learning IV does exist, to answer Andrew Moreno's question, but it is not
achievable by any individual. Learning IV is a change in the process of
paradigm change/construction, and Bateson's example of it is evolution,
(which can change the structure of the brain to change the way that humans
perceive the world and construct and modify paradigms).
Hope this is a useful contribution (if the graphics are bad, please
excuse my attempt to represent Learning graphically).
Daniel Aronson
dacce@world.std.com
<<There is something that can go on perpetually without breaking down if
energy is allowed into the system, though Nicolaus Georgescu-Roegen
missed it.>>
-----
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 03:01:38 +0001 (EST)
From: Daniel Aronson <dacce@world.std.com>
Subject: Bateson & Argyris
It seems to me that Argyris' Double-Loop Learning would be what one
engages in to move from Learning I to Learning II, and again from
Learning II to Learning III, with the difference being whether the
subject of the learning is a low-level mental model (I to II) or a
high-level paradigm (II to III). Since Bateson does not believe that
Learning IV can be done by individuals, I guess Double-Loop learning
cannot be used to go from III to IV.