Does understanding the question mean Understanding 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? Or is it difficult to then define understanding the question? 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, can we still ask how it is that we understand the thing that is featured in the definition? Can we satisfactorily define a concept, still less use it to explain understanding? Or is it just it may be more convenient to use an operational or behavioural definition, that is, to say that "somebody who reacts appropriately to x understands x". For example, does one understands Swahili if one correctly obeys commands given in that language? Will this approach, then not provide an adequate definition? Can a computer be programmed to react appropriately to commands, but there is a disagreement as to whether or not the computer understands the language? Well if that' true then in the cognitive model presented by MBTI, the process of introverted thinking (Ti) is thought to represent understanding through cause and effect relationships or correlations? can one construct a model of a system by observing correlations between all the relevant properties (e.g. The output of a NAND gate relative to its inputs)? Will this allow the person to generate truths about the system and then to apply the model to demonstrate his or her understanding of the question? for example does a mechanic randomly, or algorithmically probe the inputs and outputs of a black box to understand the internal components through the use of induction? Does INTP, ISTP, ESTP, and ENTP all use Ti and are they usually the best of the 16 types at understanding their material environment in a bottom-up manner? Do These types enjoy mechanics and digital electronics because of the 1 to 1 correlation between cause and effect relationships in these fields? Does Understanding the question not limite to these types however as other types demonstrate an identical process, although in other planes of reality; ie. Social, Theological and Aesthetic? Does A potential reason for the association of understanding with the former personality types is due to a social phenomenon for asymmetrical distribution of gratification? Does the field of engineering, engineers probe or study the inputs and outputs of components to understand their functionality? Does these components are then combined based on their functionality (similar to computer programming) to create a larger, more complex system? Is This the reason why engineers attempt to subdivide ideas as deep as possible to obtain the lowest level of knowledge for questions answered? If so does this make their models more detailed and the questions flexible? Can it be useful to know the formulas that govern an ideal question, but to visualise the question as being made up of small moving particles, which are in turn made up of even smaller particles, is this the true understanding of the question? Can people who are in need of understanding the question (through the use of Ti) usually value objects and people based on usefulness, as opposed to the people who use extroverted thinking (Te) who view people or things as having a worth? So In order to test one's understanding of the question is it necessary to present a question that forces the individual to demonstrate the possession of a model, derived from observable examples of that model's production or potential production (in the case that such a model did not exist beforehand)? Can Rote memorization be present an illusion of understanding, however when other questions are presented with modified attributes within the query, the individual cannot create a solution due to a lack of a deeper representation of reality?

I think I understand that you didn't do you homework in PHD school and you're looking for us to help you with it...
What the HeLP???
That has to be the most complicated circle jerk I've ever read. Good luck with that, and NO I did NOT understand the question.

Is this is the second step in the questioning process, knowing that Memory is essential to remembering what the question was because the information we retain when involved in the questioning process is how we create meaning from words implied in the question, do we depend on our memory to fill in the blanks when we're questioning, or Because everyone has different memories, does the questioner and the answer'er attach different meanings to the same question, or is our memories fallible and we can't remember everything that we've ever questioned, so is this the reason why there are many reasons we forget some of the question that we've received, is this called cramming, When you cram is there a lot of questions into your short term memory, or shortly after cramming, when you don't need the questions anymore, is it purged from your brain before it can be transferred into your long term memory, or is it that you aren't paying attention when you receive the question, so that alternatively, when you receive the question you may not attach importance to it, so it loses its meaning, or is it at the time the question was received you lacked motivation to listen carefully to better remember the question, will using the question immediately after receiving it enhance the question retention and lessens the forgetting curve (the rate at which we no longer retain questions in our memory), then is retention lessened when we engage in mindless questioning, where little effort is made to listen to a speaker's question, so is mindful questioning really active questioning?