# The depth of our understanding

We experience degrees of understanding as we become familiar with something. It's not always conscious, and often involves [habitual](habits.md) methods, both in our mind and (often) with the [physical world](reality.md) around us. When this set of habits applies to the physical world around us, they're also known as "skills".

There are three broad classes of things we can understand:

1. First, at the most shallow, we can understand other people. By drawing connections across shared [feelings](mind-feelings.md) and [experiences](humanity-universals.md), we [trust](trust.md) we understand others' [thinking](logic.md), [perceiving](people-image-why.md), and [doing](results.md). Usually, it's proportional to [perceived](people-image-why.md) [authority](power.md), which is why we trust the [opinions](stories-storytellers.md) of [scientists](science.md), [analysts](logic.md), [doctors](body-health.md), and [journalists](stories-journalism.md).
2. Second, we can understand things. Those things are always [perceptible](people-image-why.md), usually [measurable](math.md), and often things that directly [respond](results.md) to our interaction. We're usually only familiar with a part of that thing, since we can't observe that thing with *every* possible interaction with every other thing. We tend to draw "context" about things:
   - Physical context - [location-based](logistics-navigation.md) attributes
   - [Cultural](people-culture.md) context - human beliefs and perceptions
   - [Historical](stories-why.md) context - period of time and events
   - [Situational context](https://gainedin.site/networks/) - event-based things that are "not normal"
3. Finally, we can understand ideas. Ideas are constructed [values](values.md) in the mind and can be as concrete or abstract as we need:
   - General understanding routes through our [feelings](mind-feelings.md), and isn't very specific but is moderately useful in *many* domains (e.g., [philosophy](philosophy.md)).
   - Technical understanding requires conscious thought, and isn't that applicable to anything else, though it's far more [useful](purpose.md) than general understanding (e.g., technical specs). Thankfully, it can cross domains if we [convert it](philosophy.md) to general understanding.
   - Outside certain unique [personalities](personality.md), we gain technical understanding through firsthand experience, *then* build out our general understanding via [intuition](mind-feelings.md) or [desire](purpose.md).

Further, we tend to climb a type of ladder of understanding that builds on itself cumulatively.

A. Awareness

- Knows a term, idea, or procedure exists.
- Skills are unconscious incompetence: we don't know what we don't know.

B. Grasp

- We intellectually understand how a thing exists, but don't understand how it exists in reality.
- Skills are conscious incompetence: we don't understand it, but are also aware we don't.

C. Feeling

- We have an [emotional](mind-feelings.md) connection to that thing and grasp it beyond merely a concept to the point that we can feel its [practical use](purpose.md).
- Skills are conscious adequacy: we understand it enough to feel broadly sufficient at it (i.e., past the "frustration paradox").

D. Familiarity

- We understand the necessary [values](values.md) of that thing well enough that we can [separate it](logic.md) into its components and understand which ones matter most for [various purposes](purpose.md).
- Skills are interchangeable adequacy: we've broken it apart and can work on our weakest points.

APPLICATION: There are far too many [unknown](unknown.md) things with elements we can't know to reliably reach the end of understanding anything. For that reason, knowledge is only worth gaining if we can direct ourselves to a tangible [purpose](purpose.md).

E. Rebuilding

- We have so much intimate connection with that thing that we [imagine and predict](imagination.md) it relatively well, and can [create](creations.md) new ideas by combining multiple sources together.
- Skills are consciously competent: we know how to do it if we focus.

F. Integration

- We have complete understanding of something, with all its [facts](reality.md) and [implications](people-image-why.md).
- Skills are unconscious competence: our muscle memory does it well [without our conscious thought](habits.md), and we often even [identify](identity.md) with it.
- Once we've integrated understanding, we judge other ideas and methods from this basis of understanding.
- If we can stay in this domain, we continue mastery on the subject.

APPLICATION: What you think isn't as unique as how *far* you think. To fully understand the capacity for just about anything, take it to its farthest and most ridiculous [logical conclusion](logic.md). Most people are [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of what they may discover.

G. Simplification

- After enough time using it, we've thrown out most of the useless information and converted only the critical information into [habits](habits.md).
- Literally *all* the understanding is a reflexive skill, connected both as a mental and muscular experience.
- Unfortunately, at this level we won't be able as much to [explain](people-conversation.md) or [teach](education.md) it, and it becomes *much* easier for our skills to fade.
- At its farthest, we often attribute a complete understanding at this level to [deities](religion.md) and heavily [identify](identity.md) with our performance with it.

APPLICATION: To fully understand something, we should be able to use [language](awareness.md) that defines something, then be able to define its opposite.

Generally, the farther we understand things, the more complicated they become in our mind to capture the complexities inherent to it. If we stop using the information before reaching the final stage of habitual simplification, we slowly slide back down that ladder, but *always* retain small [patterns](symbols.md) that we can [use](purpose.md) for the rest of our lives.

To apply understanding, there are three major ways we can gain skills:

1. We can conceptually understand the raw information (though we won't necessarily be skilled with *working* with it)
2. We can train toward it (i.e., "nurture")
3. [Nature](reality.md) or [culture](people-culture.md) can grant it automatically, which often works as a multiplier for the rest

APPLICATION: The only difference between understanding and skill is whether we know something consciously or subconsciously, which isn't always clearly defined.

The most abstracted form of wisdom represents as proverbs, which have the following characteristics:

- Short enough to be memorable
- Direct or blunt enough to evoke strong [feelings](mind-feelings.md)
- Clear and [certain](understanding-certainty.md) about what is being indicated
- [Patterned](symbols.md) after [general realities of life](humanity-universals.md)
- Poetically paced, or with a poetic choice of words

APPLICATION: You can only understand something someone else says when you can say a statement back to them in your words in a way they can agree is accurate. This is *very* difficult to do, requires *tremendous* [emotional intelligence](mind-feelings.md), and most people will never do it.