Psychology Wiki
Register
No edit summary
 
Line 31: Line 31:
 
* [[Binah]] (Kabbalah)
 
* [[Binah]] (Kabbalah)
   
[[Category:Psychology]]
+
[[Category:Cognition]]
 
[[Category:Knowledge]]
 
[[Category:Knowledge]]
  +
[[Category:Philosophy of mind]]
 
[[de:Verstehen]]
 
[[fr:Compréhension]]
 
[[it:Comprensione]]
 
[[nl:Verstehen]]
 
[[ru:Понимание]]
 
[[simple:Understanding]]
 
[[th:ความเข้าใจ]]
 

Revision as of 18:54, 13 August 2006

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Philosophy Index: Aesthetics · Epistemology · Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics · Consciousness · Philosophy of Language · Philosophy of Mind · Philosophy of Science · Social and Political philosophy · Philosophies · Philosophers · List of lists


Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as, person,situation and message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.

Examples

  1. A person understands the weather if he/she is able to predict and to give an explanation of some of its features.
  2. A psychiatrist understands another person if he knows his anxieties and their causes and can give him useful advice on how to minimise the anxiety.
  3. A person understands a command if he/she knows who gave it, what is expected by the issuer, and whether the command is legitimate.
  4. One understands a reasoning, an argument, or a language if one can consciously reproduce the information content conveyed by the message.

Is understanding definable?

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 is more convenient to use an operational or behavioural definition, we can say that somebody who reacts appropriately to X understands X. For example, I understand Swahili if I correctly obey commands given in that language. This approach, however, may not provide an adequate definition. A computer can easily be programmed to react appropriately to simple commands. For most people, this would be stretching the notion of understanding to claim that under an operational definition such a computer understands the language.


Another definition

Functional definition related to a perceived information: to be able to reconceptualise, to explain and to use received information ( TOGA Meta-theory).

See also