Talk:Understanding

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: To  understand is to know the cause, i.e. acquire wisdom. Yesselman 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad examples 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "proper" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  0.33333... (under Understanding as a model) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation to R. Persion? 

message: 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?   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statement from section "Is Understanding Definable?" 

message: 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"?   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennington's Five Questions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It should be self evident from the word "under-standing" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redirects and disambiguations affecting the term "intellect" and related terms 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[The New York Review of Books]] resource 

message: Can you provide any inline citations to verify this text that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some information is missing here 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Vague/Unclear Misleading 1st Paragraph Sentence? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2.