Understanding (also called intellection) is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object. Understanding is a relation between the knower and an object of understanding. Understanding implies abilities and dispositions with respect to an object of knowledge sufficient to support intelligent behavior.[1]
An understanding is the limit of a conceptualization. To understand something is to have conceptualized it to a given measure.
Contents |
Yes, albeit with difficulty. The easiest way to define understanding is to do so in respect of specific relationships. For examples one can define the concept in the context of trust between two individuals.
A good example is the definition proposed by a Doctoral researcher from the University of Cranfield UK. In his analysis of "understanding as an antecedents of trust in virtual organisations, Joel De Messan (2011) proposed the following explanation of Understanding. "To understand someone or something, is to possess enough information about the person or thing to be able to accurately explain their unique behaviours and characteristics, accommodate their differences, or display tolerance and compassion in one's actions or judgement towards them on the basis of the insight that the information possessed provides into their reality". He therefore defined understanding as "The successful sense-making or accurate synthesis of information relating to an entity (a person, an object, a concept, or a phenomenon) that permits a justified explanation of the characteristics, behaviours and events associated with the entity".
In this definition, Mr De Messan emphasizes that true understanding is independent of the belief of the person who understands. It is an absolute function of the logic applied to observations and the accuracy of one’s interpretation of the facts that concern the entity. True understanding can only be achieved if the observer obtains and processes enough information about the entity under scrutiny to arrive at conclusions that will always remain true.
One’s understanding of something only becomes equal to real understanding when the assertions made about the thing are absolute and always true. If future improvements in our logics, formulas, reasoning etc… could invalidate one’s current explanation of a phenomenon, then the understanding that yielded the explanation does not qualify as true understanding, or better still, is only as true as current knowledge permits.
Hence, he argues, there are degrees of understanding as well as understanding at a point in time (a collective state of opinion) all of which ultimately seek to become true understanding.
The conclusion of this definition is that our closeness to true understanding is only as good as the information we possess, the logic of analysis we apply to the information we have and the finality of our reference point.
As this shows, it is difficult to define understanding. If we use the term concept as above, the question then arises as to what is a concept? Is it an abstract thing? Is it a brain pattern or a rule? Whatever definition is proposed, we can still ask how it is that we understand the thing that is featured in the definition: we can never satisfactorily define a concept, still less use it to explain understanding. It may be more convenient to use an operational or behavioural definition, that is, to say that "somebody who reacts appropriately to x understands x". For example, one understands Swahili if one correctly obeys commands given in that language. This approach, however, may not provide an adequate definition. A computer can easily be programmed to react appropriately to commands, but there is a disagreement as to whether or not the computer understands the language (see the Chinese room argument).
According to the independent socionics researcher Rostislav Persion:
In the cognitive model presented by MBTI, the process of introverted thinking (Ti) is thought to represent understanding through cause and effect relationships or correlations. One can construct a model of a system by observing correlations between all the relevant properties (e.g. The output of a NAND gate relative to its inputs). This allows the person to generate truths about the system and then to apply the model to demonstrate his or her understanding. A mechanic for example may randomly, or algorithmically probe the inputs and outputs of a black box to understand the internal components through the use of induction. INTP, ISTP, ESTP, and ENTP all use Ti and are usually the best of the 16 types at understanding their material environment in a bottom-up manner. These types may enjoy mechanics and digital electronics because of the 1 to 1 correlation between cause and effect relationships in these fields. Understanding is not limited to these types however as other types demonstrate an identical process, although in other planes of reality; ie. Social, Theological and Aesthetic. A potential reason for the association of understanding with the former personality types is due to a social phenomenon for asymmetrical distribution of gratification. In the field of engineering, engineers probe or study the inputs and outputs of components to understand their functionality. These components are then combined based on their functionality (similar to computer programming) to create a larger, more complex system. This is the reason why engineers attempt to subdivide ideas as deep as possible to obtain the lowest level of knowledge. This makes their models more detailed and flexible. It may be useful to know the formulas that govern an ideal gas, but to visualise the gas as being made up of small moving particles, which are in turn made up of even smaller particles, is true understanding. People who are understanding (through the use of Ti) usually value objects and people based on usefulness, as opposed to the people who use extroverted thinking (Te) who view people or things as having a worth. In order to test one's understanding it is necessary to present a question that forces the individual to demonstrate the possession of a model, derived from observable examples of that model's production or potential production (in the case that such a model did not exist beforehand). Rote memorization can present an illusion of understanding, however when other questions are presented with modified attributes within the query, the individual cannot create a solution due to a lack of a deeper representation of reality.
Another significant point of view holds that knowledge is the simple awareness of bits of information. Understanding is the awareness of the connection between the individual pieces of this information. It is understanding which allows knowledge to be put to use. Therefore, understanding represents a deeper level than simple knowledge.
It would be difficult if not impossible to provide citation for the previous point as it is incorrect. The actual order can best be clarified with a common usage example that can be applied to any task, in this case baking a cake. If one is explaining how to bake a cake to someone who has no previous constructs as to what exactly goes into baking a cake and the second person is able to grasp the material presented, it 'makes sense.' This statement that it makes sense does not imply any retention of the information beyond the immediate. If one watches cooking shows and can explain unprompted without immediate previous explanation what is necessary to bake a cake, they 'understand' baking a cake. This does not imply they have the necessary skill set to actually bake a cake. If one states they have knowledge as in 'I know how to bake a cake' it carries with it the understanding they can take raw ingredients and produce edible results. This example could extend to any common usage I can think of, such as watching construction shows, art shows, etc... may give you understanding of building a house, painting a picture but they do not carry with it the physical application that properly used, saying one 'knows how' does. I believe the previous point was drawn from revised Bloom's Taxonomy in which the original taxonomy had knowledge as the first tier and the revised taxonomy had understanding listed as the second tier. Note that neither model had both terms used together. Furthermore said correlation is in direct contradiction to common usage that has been accepted long before the models so 'if' the models are trying to say this, they are in fact flawed.
One final clarifying point is that of scope. Say we have someone who has watched many shows on deck building, cake making, whatever. That person could have significant understanding that goes beyond the level of a handyman who builds decks in a limited set of variations. The handyman 'knows' how to build a deck but the first person 'understands' a wider scope potentially of deck building. In the final analysis, the difference between understanding and knowledge in the most widely accepted common usage is therefore a matter of application. In reference to Blooms Taxonomy it is a theoretical model that doesn't accurately map common usage so I would submit therefore could use further revision. Knowledge in common usage would be roughly synonymous with 'Application' in the model.
Gregory Chaitin, a noted computer scientist, propounds a view that comprehension is a kind of data compression.[2] In his essay "The Limits of Reason", he argues that understanding something means being able to figure out a simple set of rules that explains it. For example, we understand why day and night exist because we have a simple model—the rotation of the earth—that explains a tremendous amount of data—changes in brightness, temperature, and atmospheric composition of the earth. We have compressed a large amount of information by using a simple model that predicts it. Similarly, we understand the number 0.33333... by thinking of it as one-third. The first way of representing the number requires an infinite amount of memory; but the second way can produce all the data of the first representation, but uses much less information. Chaitin argues that comprehension is this ability to compress data.
The concepts of comprehension, thought and understanding are also used in the short science fiction story Understand by Ted Chiang.
In Catholicism and Anglicanism, understanding is one of the Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
|
||||||||||||||