Double-Loop Learning for Beginners

Questioning your assumptions can be hard but it leads to better results

"Double Loop Learning" by The Liberators BV is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In the 1970s, a business theorist called Chris Argyris did some fascinating research on why companies find it hard to uncover mistakes and discover unpleasant truths about failing products. He developed a contrast between single-loop learning, which involves banging away at a problem in the same way without ever probing deeper; and double-loop learning, which involves questioning whether the underlying goal is a good one and whether we are using the best tools to solve the problem at hand. He published his findings in an influential article in the Harvard Business Review. It is worth noting that although double-loop learning yields much better results than single-loop learning, it is much harder to do; and questioning our assumptions and being self-reflective can be uncomfortable.

Argyris’s contrast between single loops and double loops helps underpin the approach we have been developing so far in Sharpen Your Axe. Conspiracy theorists can be seen as clear examples of single-loop learners. As an example, let’s imagine a right-wing gun owner, who strongly believes: “Guns keep me safe.” A lunatic going on a killing spree with assault weapons contradicts the gun owner’s core belief about the world and will trigger cognitive dissonance. In order to make the uncomfortable feelings triggered by contradiction go away, the gun owner might make a guess about it being a fake shooting set up by people who want to regulate gun ownership. The conspiracy theory is acting as a bodyguard to a poor starting position. The gun owner will also be drawn to conspiracy gurus like Alex Jones, who aggressively spread unfounded speculation about alleged crisis actors after mass shootings. Once the gun owner has bought into these narratives, it is easy enough to look for evidence that appears to confirm them, while ignoring contradictory evidence.

It is worth mentioning that the tendency to develop speculative narratives to protect poor starting positions is universal. I have used an example about a right-wing gun owner, but that shouldn’t be taken to mean that a left-wing pacifist is immune to this trap. Of course not! We could have easily developed an example with a left-wing anti-globalist, who blames everything bad that happens in the world on US imperialism. This kind of approach will make believers vulnerable to conspiracy theories about the alleged causes of Islamist terrorism, for example.

What should we do if we are interested in becoming better at double-loop learning? The first step is to rephrase our core beliefs in ways that are less likely to lead to problems. So, the person in the first example could think: “I am proud to be a gun owner.” This tells us a lot about the gun owner’s emotions, identity and values, but not much about the world. News stories about killing sprees become less emotionally explosive and threatening. The person in the second example might tweak a core belief to: “I stand against all violence.” Again, this tells us a lot of about personal values, but not much about the world. There is now no need to pin a bombing campaign by Islamists on an alleged plot by a secret branch of the US government.

The second step involves nurturing how we get information about the world. I strongly recommend reading a range of news sources and curating your social media feeds. Look for a consensus on what happened. Be wary about trying to guess the causes of complex events. If in doubt, suspend judgement. Try to avoid intense social-media debates. Make sure you check everything. Also, read good non-fiction books about history and current affairs instead of relying on hot takes about recent events.

The third step involves thinking like a Bayesian. As we have seen, Bayesians hold their views on a sliding scale and move them up and down based on the evidence. So, you might start out by saying that there is a 65% chance that something is true. Think of the consequences of that belief and make a prediction. Find someone who thinks you are wrong and place a modest bet. Imagine you lose. You should now scale down your 65% belief to maybe a 45% belief. Congratulations! By taking your belief over the 50% threshold (from “probably true” to “probably untrue”), you have just successfully engaged in double-loop learning.

In the spirit of double-loop learning, I would like to ask my readers what you think I am getting wrong. Is my methodology mistaken? Have you spotted any typos or errors in previous posts? How can I improve this project? Should I enable comments? Do something differently on social media? I realize journalism and marketing are very different. How can I improve the way I spread the word about Sharpen Your Axe? The best ways of reaching me are through my Twitter feed or by sending an email to sharpenyouraxe at substack.com. Thanks! See you next week!

Sharpen Your Axe is a project to develop a community who want to think critically about the media, conspiracy theories and current affairs without getting conned by gurus selling fringe views. Please subscribe to get this content in your inbox every week. Shares on social media are appreciated! If this is the first post you have seen, I recommend starting with the critical-thinking rabbit hole.

[Updated on 10 March 2022] Opinions expressed on Substack and Twitter are those of Rupert Cocke as an individual and do not reflect the opinions or views of the organization where he works or its subsidiaries.