If learning was just the acquisition of knowledge, it wouldn't explain how news can affect people so differently. Thus the necessity for framing "learning" in very precise terms, to allow for the idea of "anti-learning".
The Learning Pattern
We can think of learning in terms of process and need. For example, a basic need might be hunger. So any process which allows meeting that need which is new to the person hearing about it can be called "learning".
This way learning becomes a general game design pattern. The problem the pattern addresses is any need. The solution is a process to meet that need.
The Anti-Learning Pattern (Coping/Distraction)
The opposite of learning (yet similar enough to be misconstrued as valuable) is anti-learning. Let's pretend it's the same problem: hunger. Now if we provide a process which doesn't address the hunger, but instead distracts the person from their hunger, that process is anti-learning. In short, a coping mechanism or distraction.
[I'm not going to get into situations where someone is obese and their hunger is habituated - that's a different health need pattern where the solution process would involve spending time with hunger, diet, and exercise.]
The point of even discussing an anti-learning pattern is that all knowledge is not beneficial. Unless it addresses a need, it actually creates distraction. Or it may benefit one party while exploiting another. So there may be an interesting game dynamic available in this pattern.
