Re[2]: Learning I, II & III, Gregory Bateson, Steps to An Ec

Mon, 21 Nov 94 13:14:37 pst

I'm going to have to give credit where it's due on this:
_ ______________________________
/ )| Joe Kilbride -- |( \
/ / | Kilbride Consulting | \ \
_( (_ | Downers Grove, IL | _) )_
(((\ \>|_/->______________________<-\_|</ /)))
(\\\\ \_/ / \ \_/ ////)
\ / "All models are wrong. \ /
\ _/ Some models are useful." \_ /
/ / -- George Box \ \
/ / Statistics for Experiments \ \

There may be some insights to be gained from trying to see the fit between
Bateson's model and Argyris' model, but let's not forget they're both JUST
models. You know, some people would say an airplane is 80% aluminum, 15%
plastic, 3% copper, 2% steel; someone else would say it is a fuselage,
wings, tail, rudder, ailerons, etc. Remember the story of the three blind
men and the elephant? 'Nuff said...

>Do Level I & II correspond to Chris Argyris' Single loop learning and III to
>double loop learning?

You would probaly get different answers by asking Bateson or Argyris. In my
opinion, Learning I and Single-Loop learning are quite similar concepts,
and Learning III has similar characteristics as Double-Loop learning. I
think that Learning II fall in between, being and advanced Single-Loop
learning or a Double-Loop learning.

In my kind, these concepts cover the same range of learning, and the
difficulty in comparing them arises from the choice of using a three step
scale versus a two-step scale. Trying to fit those together by putting
Learning II into either Single-Loop or Double-Loop learning will not make
justice to any of the learning models.

I also know that there is diagreement on whether these Bateson's and
Argyris' concepts cover the same aspects of learning or not. If not, they
should be regarded as describing two different dimensions of learning:

Learning I Learning II Learning III



Anyone that would like to comment on this? What should then be the common

Ragnvald Sannes