Levels of Understanding
We use the word “understanding” as if it represents just one thing. Our friend explains something to us and closes with: "Do you understand what I mean?" We respond that we do, and perhaps we do, but we do not stop and think how well we understand it. That is the problem with thinking of understanding as one thing. It isn’t. There are many different levels.
The first level of understanding is being able to repeat the idea. This is more like parroting, by echoing we show that we "get it". The second level is being able to understand the idea in one context. Let’s say that we learn, and now understand, something about carbon dioxide, but only relative to plants. /Plants/ is our one context. On a third level, we can apply the idea to different contexts. We realize that carbon dioxide also appears important throughout the Animal Kingdom. On a fourth level we can abstract from the idea. Suddenly, carbon dioxide is part of a whole system of gases that behave in a particular way. On a fifth level we can apply this to novel situations. Someone gives us an example of a certain gas, and we suspect that this behavior is due to the special properties of carbon dioxide. And on a sixth level, the idea becomes so entrenched we intake new information through its filter. We see how carbon dioxide relates to an intricate network of living things, and we feel it responsible, in many ways, for our existence on this planet.
At no point could we say that we understood the idea. We only understood different aspects of it on deeper and deeper levels.
The first level of understanding is being able to repeat the idea. This is more like parroting, by echoing we show that we "get it". The second level is being able to understand the idea in one context. Let’s say that we learn, and now understand, something about carbon dioxide, but only relative to plants. /Plants/ is our one context. On a third level, we can apply the idea to different contexts. We realize that carbon dioxide also appears important throughout the Animal Kingdom. On a fourth level we can abstract from the idea. Suddenly, carbon dioxide is part of a whole system of gases that behave in a particular way. On a fifth level we can apply this to novel situations. Someone gives us an example of a certain gas, and we suspect that this behavior is due to the special properties of carbon dioxide. And on a sixth level, the idea becomes so entrenched we intake new information through its filter. We see how carbon dioxide relates to an intricate network of living things, and we feel it responsible, in many ways, for our existence on this planet.
At no point could we say that we understood the idea. We only understood different aspects of it on deeper and deeper levels.
6 Comments:
But is carbon dioxide an idea? It's more like a thing. And also, it's interesting that your levels of understanding are so textbook. What if my dog died of carbon dioxide poisoning (if there is a such thing)? Then one my levels of understanding of carbon dioxide would include memories of my dog, and feelings of sadness, and perhaps the feeling that carbon dioxide is a killer. This is part of what it means to understand something--to understand what it means to us, individually, I think.
I agree with jerky boy. All of the levels in the original post (except "parroting") are just variations on textbook learning. In other words, I don't see any real cognitive difference among levels 2-6 -- these all seem combinable into "level 2," and the kind of stuff jerk mentions would be "level 3" understanding.
Interesting ideas. I think we could definitely build on these two comments. I would like to hear more on this as far as how you would combine the emotional levels with the intellectual levels.
Well, I think a theme that is woven through many of your posts is your attempt to position ideas, label them, number them, and put them on scales or in hierarchies. Like: There are four ways to look at "X", and there are seven ways to discuss "Y". I don't think a hierarchy applies here. Our understanding of things, I think, includes our memories, our associations, our knowledge, our feelings, and plenty of other stuff too. Coffee: I understand it as a collection of chemical compounds and the like, a gross tasting beverage, something that causes my gastro-intestinal system to malfunction, one of the bloodiest and most politically devisive crops in the developing world, what my friend was drinking when I met his uncle Earl, a kind of ice cream I like, what Starbucks sells, a smell, etc. These are not just vague associations, they are elements of my understanding. In no particular order. Depending on the situation and the context, my understanding of coffee changes.
The idea that our understanding of a concept consists in a mix of memories, associations, observations, ideas, etc. makes perfect sense to me. However, how do you explain the acquisition of a totally new (to you) concept? How do you learn something if not by levels of use and application?
'Cause shit just happens. Say you get hit by a car and go flying through the air. You most definitely do not begin by parroting your high school physics teacher's lecture on 9.8m/s/s parabolas, work your way up through application of that lecture to present circumstances, and then apply your new grasp of gravity to other events. Instead, you immediately and thoroughly *understand* exactly what it's like to get sent flying. No hierarchies on the way to that understanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home