Gregory Bateson talks about distinct levels of learning. From behavior to enlightenment, each level represents change in the previous level.
Zero Learning: this is behavior, responding in the way you always do. The bell rings, oh it’s lunchtime, eat. This does not surprise you, so you just do the usual thing.
Learning I: this is change in behavior. Different response to the same stimulus in a given context. Rote learning is here, because it is training for a response to a prompt. Forming or removing habits.
Learning II: this is change in Learning I; so it’s learning to learn. It can be a change in the way we approach situations, problems, relationships. Character traits are formed here: are you bold, hostile, curious?
For example — you know me, so when you see me you say “Hi, Jess” — zero learning. Then you meet Avdi, so next time you can greet him by name — Learning I. Lately at meetups Avdi is working on learning everyone’s names as introductions are happening, a new strategy for him: Learning II.
Bateson sees learning in every changing system, from cells to societies.
In code — a stateless service processes a request: zero learning. A stateful application retains information and recognizes that user next time: Learning I. We change the app so it retains different data: Learning II.
Learning III: This is change in Learning II, so it is change in how character is formed. Bateson says this is rare in humans. It can happen in psychotherapy or religious conversions. “Self” is no longer a constant, nor independent of the world.
Letting go of major assumptions about life, changing worldviews, this makes me feel alive. The important shift is going from one to two, and accepting that both are cromulent: my model is, there are many models. It is OK when a new model changes me; I’m not important (for whatever version of “I” is referenced).
Learning IV: would be a change in Learning III. Evolution achieves this. It doesn’t happen in individual humans, but in a culture it could. Maybe this is development of a new religion?
I wonder where team and organizational changes fall in this.
- Zero learning: “A bug came in, so we fixed it.”
- Learning 1: “Now when bugs come in, we make sure there is a test to catch regressions.”
- Learning II: “When a bug comes in, we ask: how could we change the way we work so that this kind of bug doesn’t happen?”
- Learning III: “Bugs will always happen, so we continually improve our monitoring and observability in production, and we refine our delivery pipeline so rolling forward is smoother and easier all the time.”
- Learning IV: a framework for agile transformation! hahahahahaha