In the past, discussion of wisdom belonged to either theologians – religious thinkers – or philosophers. By contrast, much of contemporary research on wisdom has been done by psychologists. Notable among these psychologists is Robert Sternberg, who arrived at what he calls the “balance theory of wisdom.” In brief, this theory defines wisdom as balanced action among many interests in the service of the common good.
The scholars Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde define wisdom as an intellectual process, a guide to action, and a reward in itself. This suggests that wisdom is an act of reasoning, and that it’s human nature to find this process pleasurable.
Gisela Labouvie-Vief suggests that wisdom could be defined as a dialogue between rich experience and logic. How I imagine this dialogue taking place is as a conversation between two completely different women.
One of them is sitting in the soul, draped with beautiful scarves and wearing extraordinary shoes. She isn’t young; she’s mature, elegant, and joyful.
The other woman is standing, and speaks from the vantage point of the intellect. I imagine her as a Mother Superior of sorts – a veteran nun who keeps the convent solvent and attracts novices through her strong mind and unexpected compassion. Dialogue between these two would no doubt be fascinating because of its richness; advice from them would be exceptional.
Baltes and Smith (1990) define wisdom as an expert knowledge system in life, with the consequence of good judgment, advice, exceptional insight, and commentary about difficult life problems (p. 95). Those who possess this wisdom would be counselors, judges, and the friends you feel comfortable confiding in. What Baltes and Smith leave out, though, is whether or not this type of wisdom also makes the person capable of keeping secret those confidences they receive. To my mind, that’s an important point!
This reminds me of an anecdote concerning wise Socrates, who was visited by an acquaintance. The acquaintance asked Socrates if he’d like to hear what seems to have been gossip – a “story” – concerning a mutual friend. Socrates said that first he would need to test the story against three filters.
The first filter was truth; could the storyteller assure him that the story was based in fact?
The second filter was kindness; would it be kind to their friend?
The third filter was the usefulness and necessity of the story. In other words, did Socrates really need to hear it?
Only if the story could pass through these filters would Socrates agree to listen. As it turned out, the story was unable to pass through any filter. As a result, Socrates asked that his acquaintance say nothing at all about their mutual friend.
DISCUSSION QUESTION
What is your personal definition of wisdom?
The scholars Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde define wisdom as an intellectual process, a guide to action, and a reward in itself. This suggests that wisdom is an act of reasoning, and that it’s human nature to find this process pleasurable.
Gisela Labouvie-Vief suggests that wisdom could be defined as a dialogue between rich experience and logic. How I imagine this dialogue taking place is as a conversation between two completely different women.
One of them is sitting in the soul, draped with beautiful scarves and wearing extraordinary shoes. She isn’t young; she’s mature, elegant, and joyful.
The other woman is standing, and speaks from the vantage point of the intellect. I imagine her as a Mother Superior of sorts – a veteran nun who keeps the convent solvent and attracts novices through her strong mind and unexpected compassion. Dialogue between these two would no doubt be fascinating because of its richness; advice from them would be exceptional.
Baltes and Smith (1990) define wisdom as an expert knowledge system in life, with the consequence of good judgment, advice, exceptional insight, and commentary about difficult life problems (p. 95). Those who possess this wisdom would be counselors, judges, and the friends you feel comfortable confiding in. What Baltes and Smith leave out, though, is whether or not this type of wisdom also makes the person capable of keeping secret those confidences they receive. To my mind, that’s an important point!
This reminds me of an anecdote concerning wise Socrates, who was visited by an acquaintance. The acquaintance asked Socrates if he’d like to hear what seems to have been gossip – a “story” – concerning a mutual friend. Socrates said that first he would need to test the story against three filters.
The first filter was truth; could the storyteller assure him that the story was based in fact?
The second filter was kindness; would it be kind to their friend?
The third filter was the usefulness and necessity of the story. In other words, did Socrates really need to hear it?
Only if the story could pass through these filters would Socrates agree to listen. As it turned out, the story was unable to pass through any filter. As a result, Socrates asked that his acquaintance say nothing at all about their mutual friend.
DISCUSSION QUESTION
What is your personal definition of wisdom?
