Talk:Understanding

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Understanding article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Epistemology High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science Stub‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Untitled

My similarly intuitive 'understanding' of the origin/construction of the word understanding, similar to a sense of a pedestal or support, is that understanding is having knowledge which stands under and supports other knowledge, as in how knowing how to count stands under and supports the use of the concept of addition (since adding is actually counting a combination of items), and adding stands under the concept of multiplication (since 2 times 3 means take 3 items 2 times, ie, add 2 groups of 3 items), and multiplication stands under the concept of exponentiation (as 2 to the 3rd power means 2 times itself 3 times, 2x2x2). So having a simple item of knowledge supports a more complex item of knowledge. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{cleanup-tone}} on July 15, 2005. The first person familiar tone is inconsistent with the other articles and should probably be updated. I don't think I'm the right guy to do it, and I don't want to mess up the meaning of the article, so here's hoping someone ambitious can fix it. - Chairboy 20:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding

To understand is to know the cause, i.e. acquire wisdom. Yesselman 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To understand is to mitigate the loss of Peace of Mind.

perhaps, the word understanding, in itself, represents the equilibrium of chaos

This article needs some serious work. It definitely needs a warning label of the "this article is not finished" type.

Clean up tag

I added a CU tap since I belive the tone of the article is mostly not appropriate. Articles are, for example, not expected to be written in first person. Introgressive 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad examples

I think that the cases used are not good examples, or are at least badly worded 81.165.230.85 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"proper"

I agree.
I think saying "somebody who reacts appropriately to X understands X" is not a good definition, as it may tend to moralize the understanding (wich i believe is not necessary).
"Appropiately" imply that there are rules in "reacting to X". As i can see it, these rules are also a product of understanding. (It is, of course, the very problem in the definition itself, as declared in the article.)

I also disagree with the suggestion in the article ("it may be more convenient to use an operational or behavioural definition"). I can think of operation, behaviour, and action as three different concepts, and i read the given definition more like behaviourist.

More than remove that definition, i suggest to add definitions to the list (and therefore complexity to the article). Structuralist and post-structuralist linguistics may be two new fields to add, as well as psychoanalysis and psychiatry. Maybe semiotics/semiology too. And i see no problem in using author definitions (as does the article) rather than school/discipline stated definitions. But i think the article needs some expansion.

--190.245.107.245 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0.33333... (under Understanding as a model)

I believe that this basic repeated fraction is a very flawed example. I would argue that no real concept of this number exists, except as something of the sort of "0 followed by decimal dot, followed by an infinite repetition of 3s". In this sense, no actual discussion can of this concept can occur, without it being already compressed, and there is not much difference in the level of compression between "0.33333...", "1/3" and "one third". Note that this specific example does not actually appear in Chaitin's article.

"Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation to R. Persion?

This entire section is attributed to a non-notable "independent researcher" who is not cited outside internet forums. This section should be removed as original research without additional citation. --MMX (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to clarify the concept of understanding, i disagree with the statement of "must be removed because is a non-notable independent researcher, only cited on internet forums", as i understand it's still in the best interests of the encyclopedia's content.

Removed statement from section "Is Understanding Definable?"

This link that was cited is broken. I looked all over that website and could not find where Edison said or wrote about "under" and "stand" coming together in the word "understand". I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. Can the article's author or someone else cite a reference? ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following statement from the above cited section because the reference link is still broken, I've not been able to find a citation anywhere, and no one else has added a proper citation...

Thomas Edison believed that the concept of understanding comes from the two simple words under and stand. When one acknowledges that she/he stands below someone or something else, she/he makes him/herself receptive to obtain and retain information from it, thereby allowing for understanding to occur."^{[citation needed]} "(comment following) -- [http://www.thomasedison.com/biog.htm]. This link is broken. I looked all over this website and could not find where Edison said this. I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. - Paine Ellsworth (comment end)

Please do not undo this until and unless a proper citation is found. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pennington's Five Questions

The explanatory parts (in parentheses) sound more like "examples" to me. So rather than "i.e. = that is", wouldn't it be less confusing to use "e.g. = example"? ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be self evident from the word "under-standing"

It should be self evident from the word "under-standing" that understanding is the exercise of wisdom for someone else... you "stand under" them and elevate their need with the difference between their knowledge and yours (wisdom) that you are aware of. If you do not give this definition you deny understanding's primary status as a spiritual act in connection with wisdom. my thoughts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.115.54 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Further, Understanding is differentiated from comprehension by the subject object relation. As a function of understanding we, the object stand under the authority of a system of relative information and it's hierarchies, whereas with comprehension the mind grasps the object information or concepts and brings them within the realm of it's own thought world. LeaWanderer (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather suggest that the self-evidency of the word "under-standing" is that a person or entity has a large set of relevant knowledge which "stands-under" some concept, action, situation etc, which knowledge adequately explains the function of the concept or the dynamics of the action, and allows for effective actions to be taken in relation to the concept. For instance, to 'understand' exponents, it's useful to know that exponents are just multiplication, and that multiplication is just addition, and that addition is just counting.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirects and disambiguations affecting the term "intellect" and related terms

A discussion has started elsewhere which editors of this article are invited to comment about. But please respond here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Review of Books resource

It Does Take a Village December 8, 2011 The New York Review of Books Melvin Konner. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy Belknap Press/ Harvard University Press 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, potentially, might that review add to this article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be more specific to Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (evolutionary anthropology), Origins of society and Mother. It appears to be a 2009 book from her article, although the Amazon.com states Harvard University Press (April 15, 2011). This needs follow-up but I gotta go. 99.190.86.16 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some information is missing here

@Greenrd: Can you provide any inline citations to verify this text that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of it should be relatively obvious to those with the requisite understanding of the material being covered. Because the text I added is quite long, could you narrow down your request in any way? What specifically do you want citations for? And do you want citations for the object-level claims (the facts about multiplication etc.) or the meta-level claims (about understanding of those facts)?--greenrd (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague/Unclear Misleading 1st Paragraph Sentence?

In the first paragraph, the page is started off with:

 Understanding 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.

My concern regarding this paragraph lies only in the last portion of this sentence, which would explain the significance of my gripe.

 ...and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.

From several re-readings of the first sentence, it seems as if this addition goes beyond its realm of expertise(aka it's designated page: Understanding).

1.

Would the ability to use concepts to deal with another object not be considered application? Or is this sentence implying the usage of these thoughts to create concepts to further their comprehension?

2.

If my first assumption is correct, then the last part is of the sentence should be incorrect as using concepts resulting from thoughts is not what understanding is, but rather what application is.

Application being converting your understanding into an action("..deal adequately..").

\Shelled Yolk (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.161.226 (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]