Replying to LO24373
Dear At and Dear Lo-learners:
At 11:30 17-04-2000 +0200, AM de Lange wrote:
>John H. Dicus <jdicus@ourfuture.com> writes:
>
>>I wanted to share one way I have used the word "unlearning."
>>I was looking for a way to frame a concept and remembered
>>hearing, at one time in the past, the word "unbelief." As I recall,
>>the word implied a slightly different meaning for me than disbelief,
>>or simply not believing.
>
>
>(BIG SNIP)
>When I saw you comparing "unlearning" with "unbelief", I suddenly realised
>that you may be using "learning" as a noun (having "knowledge as as a
>synonym) since "belief" is a noun. Thus when you speak of the "unlearning"
>of "something", you mean the undoing or destroying of the knowledge of
>that "something" rather than the "learning" which rtaher has to be
>extended. Perhaps other learners who have supported the idea of
>"unlearning" did it too.
No, At, in what concerns me, when I supported the idea of unlearning I was
thinking of a verb, not a noun. To unlearn like in "to undo" something.
As you know, English is not even my second language, but I think that
"undo" is used sometimes even if what someone has previously done was
"irreversible".
Can any native speaker of English tell if I am correct or not? If I am,
than to undo is not to reverse the situation, but to do what is necessary
to correct the situation.
Identically, to "unlearn" is not to come back to the moment before we have
learnt; nor to do an easy "reverse process" (like forgetting); it is to do
some active action to modify the old and persistent (normally tacit)
"knowledge".
One can say that unlearning is a type of learning; and maybe that is
right; but it is a very special type (or phase) of the learning process
that is needed whenever we are considering simultaneously tacit knowledge
and double loop learning (one situation is when there are "strong
feelings" involved, but in other situations that is not the case, but only
some tacit knowledge that has persisted for years, but is not "effective"
any more (or not so effective as a different one).
At the individual and organisational levels this is a so complex process
as it is for a scientific community to accept a complete change in the
dominant paradigm. The word "unlearning" indicates that a special process
must be used if one wants to have success in overcoming the problem.
Another situation is when the question is to change from Argyris & Schon
Model 1 to Model 2. It is not enough to "learn model 2", because Model 1
will reappear persistently and repeatedly, for years. A significant effort
must be dedicated to unlearn model 1. I am sure many of the consultants on
this list have already experienced the problem, namely while helping
creating a LO. I would like very much to know what ways they have used to
help customers "unlearn" Model 1.
>But what about "unlearning" where the "learning" is a verb! In this case
>it means a reversing of the action in learning. This brings us to a very,
>very fundamental question: Is learning a reversible or an irreversible
>act? It is here where each of us has distinguish what is making sense to
>us. For me it is motivation which makes learning intrinsically
>irreversible. The less the motivation, the more reversible the learning
>becomes.
I don't think we can discuss if learning is reversible or irreversible
without previously clarify what we mean by "learning". So, At, can you
please give me a (short) definition or explanation of what learning means
to you?
I also can't understand why a big motivation makes learning irreversible
(or reversible). Would you mind to explain that again, please?.
>Something like "rote learning" (learning which happens like in a machine)
>is for me reversible learning. Its like putting a car into reverse gear.
>However, when I am motivated to learn by experiences whereby such
>experiences emerge into tacit knowledge can only be irreversible.
Could you please translate the concept of "root" (or "rote") learning? Is
it "single loop learning"? And when you say that root learning is more
"reversible" are you thinking only about "forgetting"?
If not, and if root learning is reversible, then there is at least a case
where learning is reversible. If I decide to call "root learning" to
something that you call "emergent learning", than I can assume that this
learning is reversible. Is it so?
>Likewise that learning which let tacit knowledge emerge into explicit
>knowledge is also irreversible.
The problem with your "emergence" is that, as it is not operationally
defined, different people can interpret it differently.
The question of the change of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge has
already been discussed here (with or without emergencies). Someone
clarified already that, according to the definition from Polanyi, tacit
knowledge is the type of Knowledge that CAN NOT be made explicit. (Of
course, we can say that Polanyi was wrong, or, more elegantly use a
different term). What I find interesting is that even after that has been
said (and repeated, if I recall well) a lot of people have continued to
talk about the "conversion from tacit to explicit".
But that is not only a definition from Polinyi: it is normally accepted
within our field. For instance in "The Dance of Change", under the heading
"Tacit Knowledge" (pag 422/423, of the UK edition) it is said: "It is
important to understand that tacit knowledge CAN NEVER be reduced to
explicit knowledge. In fact, talk about "converting tacit to explicit
knowledge" reflects a SUPERFICIAL grasp of the notion of tacit.(...)
Ultimately, contemplating the deeper meaning of tacit knowledge leads do
recognising subtleties in what it means for humans to Know" (I will came
back to this quotation in a different post).
This is a long post; I must finish now.
Regards
Artur
Artur F. Silva <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
[Host's Note: In assoc with Amazon.com...
The Dance of Change by Peter M. Senge, Art Kleiner (Editor), Charlotte Roberts, George Roth, Rick Ross http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385493223/learningorg
..Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.