The science of wisdom has reached a critical point where researchers from numerous fields propose many distinct wisdom models (for reviews, see: Grossmann et al., Reference Grossmann2020; Phan et al., Reference Phan, Blackie, Horstmann, Jayawickreme and Rauthmann2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Shi, Wang and Ferrari2022). The great amount of wisdom models has made it difficult for researchers to communicate their findings within their research field, across psychological disciplines, and to the public. Moreover, the breadth of models challenges researchers' power to derive testable and novel predictions, while scientific discovery requires verifiable hypotheses that can be refuted by contrary evidence (Popper, Reference Popper2005). Among the many models proposed, researchers must consider employing “Occam’s razor” to discover a parsimonious yet verifiable wisdom model that can provide informative and falsifiable hypotheses.
In this vein, Leeman et al. (Reference Leeman, Knight and Fein2022) distinguish between wisdom and wisdom-related psychological constructs (i.e., humor, openness) within the SAWS dimensions. Nevertheless, statistical methods using structural equation modeling are insufficient for constructing a robust wisdom model (Thomas and Duffy, Reference Thomas and Duffy2022). The axiomatic assumptions and necessary psychological processes (e.g., metacognition) for wisdom should be established to determine the core of wisdom and its antecedent and consequent. Eventually, researchers can critically evaluate models prior to statistical testing. Finally, if wisdom remains a theoretically generalizable construct that follows “Occam’s razor”, the core of wisdom should not overlap with other established psychological constructs (e.g., emotional regulation), or include vague and broad constructs (e.g., experience).
Wisdom as a concept has an enduring history in Chinese and Western culture (Yang, Reference Yang2008). However, wisdom as an empirical construct in psychology research is usually attributed to Clayton’s (Reference Clayton1975) work on human development (e.g., Grossmann et al., Reference Grossmann2020; Sternberg, Reference Sternberg1998). Specifically, Clayton’s (Reference Clayton1975) views of wisdom are inspired by Erikson’s theory of human development across the aging lifespan (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997). Nevertheless, most wisdom models ignore the role of lifespan development or successful aging, except for a few, e.g., the Berlin and San Diego Wisdom Models (Baltes and Staudinger, Reference Baltes and Staudinger2000; Thomas et al., Reference Thomas2021). Erikson assumes wisdom to be a positive quality one could develop at the later stages of life after successfully resolving the crisis between integrity and despair (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997). Although Clayton (Reference Clayton1975) contended that Erikson’s terminology was too vague, Joan M. Erikson provided a clear definition of “wisdom” after thoroughly examining its historical use (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997, p. 11). Etymologically, “wisdom” can be dated back to the ancient Indian Vēdas, which translates to “to see, to know” and is consistently defined by Erik H. Erikson as the elders' “informed and detached concern with life itself in the face of death itself”, which rests in their perceptual and cognitive capacity in memory (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997, p. 53, 93).
Wisdom researchers must respect the dictionary definition of “wisdom” to communicate wisdom research to the public. The Merriam-Webster dictionary primarily defines wisdom as: “the ability to discern inner qualities and relationships, i.e., insight” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wisdom), echoing the ancient Indian Vēda. Interestingly, wisdom is defined as “the ability to understand things and solve problems quickly, flexibly and correctly” in the prominent Chinese dictionary Xinhua Zidian (11th edition, p. 652). Notably, the meaning of wisdom in the Chinese language is influenced by the Buddhist cultural influence from India around the Tang dynasty (618 to 907 AD) (Yang, Reference Yang2008). The convergence of the definitions of wisdom on “insight and understanding” in Chinese and English languages may be due to the common influence of the ancient Indian language. Consistently, Chinese and Western laypeople primarily emphasize the cognitive aspect of wisdom in their definition of wisdom (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Ferrari, Liu, Gao and Weare2018).
According to the dictionary definition, “wisdom” involves individuals' ability to perceive or understand the essence of reality. However, “reality” could be problematic given the largely constructivist orientation of developmental psychology and cognitive science (e.g., what is real? Is there a reality?) (Vervaeke and Ferraro, Reference Vervaeke, Ferraro, Ferrari and Weststrate2013). Therefore, the term “wisdom” is monolithically ascribed to one’s ability to construct models to represent objects in the world for solving problems. Notably, wisdom is defined by Clayton (Reference Clayton1983) as the “ability to grasp human nature”, which depends on the cognitive process of “constructing models for representing human nature”. Similarly, the definition of wisdom in the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Baltes and Staudinger, Reference Baltes and Staudinger2000) and the SAWS component of reminiscence/reflection (Webster, Reference Webster2003) depends on “constructing models for representing human life”.
Considering this parsimonious definition of wisdom, one can further split multiple dimensional “wisdom” models into wisdom’s antecedent, core, and consequent. In Leeman et al.’s (Reference Leeman, Knight and Fein2022) proposed model of SAWS, the “experience” component could be an antecedent, and the “emotional regulation” component a consequent. Likewise, the “cognitive” component of the 3DWS wisdom model could be the core, the “reflective” an antecedent, and the “affective” a consequent (Ardelt, Reference Ardelt2003).
Limiting wisdom to the dictionary definition may elude wisdom researchers who assert wisdom is not merely a cognitive faculty and virtuous real-world actions are more important. Indeed, wisdom researchers should humbly admit that wisdom is not exclusively sufficient for every virtuous real-world action. Depending on the specific problems and contexts, wisdom should be combined with different virtues and abilities, including empathy, emotional regulation, and humor, to solve problems prosocially. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary to factor these capacities and virtues into the model to make wisdom a more powerful construct for solving real-world problems. A parsimonious model of “wisdom” would not lose its power because it contributes to the development of many positive psychological constructs. For example, emotional regulation depends on the process of constructing models for representing emotional processes (Gross, Reference Gross2015).
Additionally, simplifying the scope of wisdom may increase the refutability of wisdom theories and thus improve the information the theories provide (Popper, Reference Popper2005, p. 19), which is also critical for the development of psychological science (Meehl, Reference Meehl1990). In contrast, the greater variables in wisdom models, the more likely researchers could find a significant effect without distinguishing the variable responsible for producing that effect. For example, Grossmann et al. Reference Grossmann, Na, Varnum, Park, Kitayama and Nisbett(2010) found the age effect was significant on the composite score of wisdom in the domain of interpersonal conflict but not on the sub-dimensions of “conflict resolution” or “uncertainty”. Nevertheless, they still regarded the sub-dimensions of “conflict resolution” and “uncertainty” as wisdom components, arguing that wisdom develops with age (Grossmann et al., Reference Grossmann, Na, Varnum, Park, Kitayama and Nisbett2010, study 2).
Additionally, defining “wisdom” as an integration of several distinct and vague psychological constructs such as “integration of virtue and wit” (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Shi, Wang and Ferrari2022) may appear perplexing and lose the distinctive core of wisdom. There are several variations of virtue and wit (e.g., fairness, empathy, imagination, reasoning) among individuals, which may be significantly positively correlated with each other given enough statistical power, and then a composite score can be calculated (Meehl, Reference Meehl1990). However, whether this composite score is an accurate measure of “wisdom” or merely a statistical outcome remains unclear. To resolve this, researchers could set parameters for defining wisdom. One parameter can include the argument that wisdom can be cultivated in old age. For example, older adults have more life experience and can further develop the ability to construct models representing human nature. Thus, this capacity may be regarded as an embodiment of wisdom. Additionally, wisdom should be a quality developed with years of experience. For example, understanding slapstick humor does not require much life experience and hence should not be considered an embodiment of wisdom. In contrast, understanding the humor of a profound joke (e.g., Thor Heyerdahl’s line: “progress is man’s ability to complicate simplicity”) should be (and thus Thor Heyerdahl’s humor should be a consequence of wisdom). Incorporating parameters (e.g., greater life experience) into wisdom could provide clues for which psychological constructs are antecedents or consequents of wisdom. For example, openness may be considered an antecedent of wisdom – as demonstrated by Leeman et al. (Reference Leeman, Knight and Fein2022), because it contributes to individuals’ diversified life experiences – increasing the opportunity to amend and construct models for representing complicated objects in life (e.g., human nature).
In sum, wisdom should be regarded as distinct from related psychological constructs. Wisdom researchers should refer to the linguistic definition of wisdom in dictionaries based on its historical use in the language. Moreover, wisdom is necessary but not sufficient for the welfare of human society. Many other psychological constructs are also important, e.g., humor, openness, emotional regulation, empathy, and moral reasoning. Wisdom should be regarded as a distinct human faculty that cooperates with these psychological constructs to solve real-world problems. Nevertheless, researchers often use “wisdom” as an elusive umbrella term for numerous psychological constructs. In contrast, Leeman et al. made a significant stride in developing a parsimonious model of wisdom. This has important implications for wisdom research practices, such as reducing the cost of psychometric tools (Thomas and Duffy, Reference Thomas and Duffy2022) and producing scientific theories of wisdom that have strong predictive validity and falsifiability. Nevertheless, researchers still need a scientific theory about the core of wisdom.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Description of authors’ roles
Chao S. Hu wrote the first draft of the commentary. Harley Glassman commented on and edited the draft.
You have
Access
The science of wisdom has reached a critical point where researchers from numerous fields propose many distinct wisdom models (for reviews, see: Grossmann et al., Reference Grossmann2020; Phan et al., Reference Phan, Blackie, Horstmann, Jayawickreme and Rauthmann2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Shi, Wang and Ferrari2022). The great amount of wisdom models has made it difficult for researchers to communicate their findings within their research field, across psychological disciplines, and to the public. Moreover, the breadth of models challenges researchers' power to derive testable and novel predictions, while scientific discovery requires verifiable hypotheses that can be refuted by contrary evidence (Popper, Reference Popper2005). Among the many models proposed, researchers must consider employing “Occam’s razor” to discover a parsimonious yet verifiable wisdom model that can provide informative and falsifiable hypotheses.
In this vein, Leeman et al. (Reference Leeman, Knight and Fein2022) distinguish between wisdom and wisdom-related psychological constructs (i.e., humor, openness) within the SAWS dimensions. Nevertheless, statistical methods using structural equation modeling are insufficient for constructing a robust wisdom model (Thomas and Duffy, Reference Thomas and Duffy2022). The axiomatic assumptions and necessary psychological processes (e.g., metacognition) for wisdom should be established to determine the core of wisdom and its antecedent and consequent. Eventually, researchers can critically evaluate models prior to statistical testing. Finally, if wisdom remains a theoretically generalizable construct that follows “Occam’s razor”, the core of wisdom should not overlap with other established psychological constructs (e.g., emotional regulation), or include vague and broad constructs (e.g., experience).
Wisdom as a concept has an enduring history in Chinese and Western culture (Yang, Reference Yang2008). However, wisdom as an empirical construct in psychology research is usually attributed to Clayton’s (Reference Clayton1975) work on human development (e.g., Grossmann et al., Reference Grossmann2020; Sternberg, Reference Sternberg1998). Specifically, Clayton’s (Reference Clayton1975) views of wisdom are inspired by Erikson’s theory of human development across the aging lifespan (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997). Nevertheless, most wisdom models ignore the role of lifespan development or successful aging, except for a few, e.g., the Berlin and San Diego Wisdom Models (Baltes and Staudinger, Reference Baltes and Staudinger2000; Thomas et al., Reference Thomas2021). Erikson assumes wisdom to be a positive quality one could develop at the later stages of life after successfully resolving the crisis between integrity and despair (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997). Although Clayton (Reference Clayton1975) contended that Erikson’s terminology was too vague, Joan M. Erikson provided a clear definition of “wisdom” after thoroughly examining its historical use (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997, p. 11). Etymologically, “wisdom” can be dated back to the ancient Indian Vēdas, which translates to “to see, to know” and is consistently defined by Erik H. Erikson as the elders' “informed and detached concern with life itself in the face of death itself”, which rests in their perceptual and cognitive capacity in memory (Erikson and Erikson, Reference Erikson and Erikson1959/1997, p. 53, 93).
Wisdom researchers must respect the dictionary definition of “wisdom” to communicate wisdom research to the public. The Merriam-Webster dictionary primarily defines wisdom as: “the ability to discern inner qualities and relationships, i.e., insight” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wisdom), echoing the ancient Indian Vēda. Interestingly, wisdom is defined as “the ability to understand things and solve problems quickly, flexibly and correctly” in the prominent Chinese dictionary Xinhua Zidian (11th edition, p. 652). Notably, the meaning of wisdom in the Chinese language is influenced by the Buddhist cultural influence from India around the Tang dynasty (618 to 907 AD) (Yang, Reference Yang2008). The convergence of the definitions of wisdom on “insight and understanding” in Chinese and English languages may be due to the common influence of the ancient Indian language. Consistently, Chinese and Western laypeople primarily emphasize the cognitive aspect of wisdom in their definition of wisdom (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Ferrari, Liu, Gao and Weare2018).
According to the dictionary definition, “wisdom” involves individuals' ability to perceive or understand the essence of reality. However, “reality” could be problematic given the largely constructivist orientation of developmental psychology and cognitive science (e.g., what is real? Is there a reality?) (Vervaeke and Ferraro, Reference Vervaeke, Ferraro, Ferrari and Weststrate2013). Therefore, the term “wisdom” is monolithically ascribed to one’s ability to construct models to represent objects in the world for solving problems. Notably, wisdom is defined by Clayton (Reference Clayton1983) as the “ability to grasp human nature”, which depends on the cognitive process of “constructing models for representing human nature”. Similarly, the definition of wisdom in the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Baltes and Staudinger, Reference Baltes and Staudinger2000) and the SAWS component of reminiscence/reflection (Webster, Reference Webster2003) depends on “constructing models for representing human life”.
Considering this parsimonious definition of wisdom, one can further split multiple dimensional “wisdom” models into wisdom’s antecedent, core, and consequent. In Leeman et al.’s (Reference Leeman, Knight and Fein2022) proposed model of SAWS, the “experience” component could be an antecedent, and the “emotional regulation” component a consequent. Likewise, the “cognitive” component of the 3DWS wisdom model could be the core, the “reflective” an antecedent, and the “affective” a consequent (Ardelt, Reference Ardelt2003).
Limiting wisdom to the dictionary definition may elude wisdom researchers who assert wisdom is not merely a cognitive faculty and virtuous real-world actions are more important. Indeed, wisdom researchers should humbly admit that wisdom is not exclusively sufficient for every virtuous real-world action. Depending on the specific problems and contexts, wisdom should be combined with different virtues and abilities, including empathy, emotional regulation, and humor, to solve problems prosocially. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary to factor these capacities and virtues into the model to make wisdom a more powerful construct for solving real-world problems. A parsimonious model of “wisdom” would not lose its power because it contributes to the development of many positive psychological constructs. For example, emotional regulation depends on the process of constructing models for representing emotional processes (Gross, Reference Gross2015).
Additionally, simplifying the scope of wisdom may increase the refutability of wisdom theories and thus improve the information the theories provide (Popper, Reference Popper2005, p. 19), which is also critical for the development of psychological science (Meehl, Reference Meehl1990). In contrast, the greater variables in wisdom models, the more likely researchers could find a significant effect without distinguishing the variable responsible for producing that effect. For example, Grossmann et al. Reference Grossmann, Na, Varnum, Park, Kitayama and Nisbett(2010) found the age effect was significant on the composite score of wisdom in the domain of interpersonal conflict but not on the sub-dimensions of “conflict resolution” or “uncertainty”. Nevertheless, they still regarded the sub-dimensions of “conflict resolution” and “uncertainty” as wisdom components, arguing that wisdom develops with age (Grossmann et al., Reference Grossmann, Na, Varnum, Park, Kitayama and Nisbett2010, study 2).
Additionally, defining “wisdom” as an integration of several distinct and vague psychological constructs such as “integration of virtue and wit” (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Shi, Wang and Ferrari2022) may appear perplexing and lose the distinctive core of wisdom. There are several variations of virtue and wit (e.g., fairness, empathy, imagination, reasoning) among individuals, which may be significantly positively correlated with each other given enough statistical power, and then a composite score can be calculated (Meehl, Reference Meehl1990). However, whether this composite score is an accurate measure of “wisdom” or merely a statistical outcome remains unclear. To resolve this, researchers could set parameters for defining wisdom. One parameter can include the argument that wisdom can be cultivated in old age. For example, older adults have more life experience and can further develop the ability to construct models representing human nature. Thus, this capacity may be regarded as an embodiment of wisdom. Additionally, wisdom should be a quality developed with years of experience. For example, understanding slapstick humor does not require much life experience and hence should not be considered an embodiment of wisdom. In contrast, understanding the humor of a profound joke (e.g., Thor Heyerdahl’s line: “progress is man’s ability to complicate simplicity”) should be (and thus Thor Heyerdahl’s humor should be a consequence of wisdom). Incorporating parameters (e.g., greater life experience) into wisdom could provide clues for which psychological constructs are antecedents or consequents of wisdom. For example, openness may be considered an antecedent of wisdom – as demonstrated by Leeman et al. (Reference Leeman, Knight and Fein2022), because it contributes to individuals’ diversified life experiences – increasing the opportunity to amend and construct models for representing complicated objects in life (e.g., human nature).
In sum, wisdom should be regarded as distinct from related psychological constructs. Wisdom researchers should refer to the linguistic definition of wisdom in dictionaries based on its historical use in the language. Moreover, wisdom is necessary but not sufficient for the welfare of human society. Many other psychological constructs are also important, e.g., humor, openness, emotional regulation, empathy, and moral reasoning. Wisdom should be regarded as a distinct human faculty that cooperates with these psychological constructs to solve real-world problems. Nevertheless, researchers often use “wisdom” as an elusive umbrella term for numerous psychological constructs. In contrast, Leeman et al. made a significant stride in developing a parsimonious model of wisdom. This has important implications for wisdom research practices, such as reducing the cost of psychometric tools (Thomas and Duffy, Reference Thomas and Duffy2022) and producing scientific theories of wisdom that have strong predictive validity and falsifiability. Nevertheless, researchers still need a scientific theory about the core of wisdom.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Description of authors’ roles
Chao S. Hu wrote the first draft of the commentary. Harley Glassman commented on and edited the draft.