Content uploaded by Nic M. Weststrate
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nic M. Weststrate on Apr 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom
Michel Ferrari and Nic M. Weststrate
In this concluding chapter, we synthesize some of the main themes found in
previous chapters in the volume. We pay particular attention to the various
dimensions, exemplars, and paradoxes that contributors raise about wisdom as a
topic for scientific inquiry. In the second half of this chapter, we consider what the
diversity of opinions presented about wisdom imply for the scientific study of
personal wisdom, how to reconcile these approaches, and possible future directions
that such a science might take to advance our understanding of wisdom.
What Is Personal Wisdom?
Current Western understandings of wisdom can be traced back to two strands of
ancient thought: one from the Ancient Near East (which includes biblical “wisdom
literature”
1
) and the other to Ancient Greek philosophers (i.e., lovers of wisdom). In
fact, these two traditions are not completely distinct from each other. Both the
Hebrew term hochma and the Greek term sophos originally refer to a practical skill
or know-how. They can apply to material crafts like blacksmithing or boat building
but also to a general skill in living a good life. Broadening our focus to include
ancient Mesopotamia, we find that the god of wisdom, Ea, was said to have brought
all the arts and crafts of civilization to mankind. Taken together, wisdom can be
understood as living the best life possible through the use of all of the skills that
civilization has accumulated (Curnow, 2010). While in some ways these ancient
M. Ferrari (*) • N.M. Weststrate
Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto, Bloor Street West 252, M5S 1V6, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: michel.ferrari@utoronto.ca;nic.weststrate@utoronto.ca
1
Usually including Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), and, among the Apocrypha, The
Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach).
M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate (eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7987-7_15, #Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
325
traditions are very different from modern science, it is striking how well this
original understanding of wisdom resonates with the understanding of wisdom
developed by different contributors to this book.
Personal wisdom, as approached by science, exemplifies the oldest wisdom
traditions, which claim to provide insight and advice into how to live a good
life––it is the hope of many contributors that scientific methods can either confirm
or advance insights from these wisdom traditions to help people live more fulfilling
lives. Perhaps the current distinction between scientific and religious wisdom
traditions (i.e., whether wisdom is knowledge derived from lived experience or is
the product of a secret revelation known only to scribes or those who are literate)
traces its roots to confidence or skepticism over whether human reasoning and
personal effort can contribute to a better life or whether one must rely on some
higher divine power to fully accomplish this. But at least for the science of wisdom
described in the chapters of this book, wisdom is seen as squarely emerging out of a
deep knowledge and appreciation of lived experience, which we will explore more
fully in the next section.
What Do Our Contributors Mean by Personal Wisdom?
Staudinger and Glu
¨ck (2011) reflect a majority view of researchers studying
wisdom scientifically when they write that wisdom concerns good judgment that
is confined to questions dealing with the uncertainty of life, existential or otherwise.
This definition connects to the ancient wisdom traditions just mentioned, but the
chapters in this volume show that it is certainly incomplete. In fact, we find a range
of approaches to personal wisdom within the chapters of this volume including:
1. Wisdom as decision-making ability (Staudinger; Sternberg)
2. Wisdom as pragmatically relevant insight (Vervaeke & Ferraro)
3. Wisdom as self-transcendent insight (Levenson & Aldwin; Rosch; Takahashi)
4. Wisdom as a set of traits or personality characteristics (Ardelt, Achenbaum, &
Oh; Glu
¨ck & Bluck)
5. Wisdom as a social phenomenon (Edmondson)
6. Wisdom as a narrative process (Ferrari, Weststrate, & Petro)
7. Some combination of these viewpoints (Sanders & Jeste; Wink & Dillon; Yang)
This wide range of approaches reveals that the definition of wisdom, and how to
gather evidence for it or to foster it, is far from settled. In his 2005 book, Wisdom of
Ancient Sumer, Brendt Alster devotes the first 6.5 pages of his introduction to a
discussion of various efforts to define wisdom literature as it applies to the writings
of the ancient Sumerians, the first civilization to produce what we now consider
wisdom writings about the gods and rulers. Likewise, Gammie and Perdue (1990)
in their influential edited volume on The Sage in Ancient Israel and the Near East
conclude by providing a general scheme that is also useful for sifting through the
various approaches to wisdom in this volume. The oldest wisdom tradition is
326 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
“prudential” (e.g., Proverbs), or parenetic (i.e., exhorts, advises, councils) and can
be further divided into instructional or hortatory; the more recent ancient wisdom is
skeptical and can be further divided into disputations (e.g., Job) and reflections
(e.g., Qoheleth).
Building on Gammie and Perdue’s (1990) basic scheme, the following section
proposes two ways to meaningfully organize the approaches to wisdom advanced
by contributors to the volume. The first approach is to consider a variety of
dimensions on which definitions of wisdom might be situated. The second is to
consider exemplars from the historical traditions that inform our understandings of
wisdom today and thus relate directly to how our contributors conceive of personal
wisdom.
Dimensions Along Which Approaches to Wisdom Can Be Situated
Why is wisdom so difficult to define and to explain? Edmondson suggests, we think
rightly, that wisdom is a “range concept,” that is, there may be a family of types of
wisdom that share interconnections but not a common analytic definition. Never-
theless, it is still possible to imagine a multidimensional space in which conceptions
of wisdom might be situated along a set of dimensions. The following dimensions
seem to capture many of the different ways of thinking about personal wisdom
described in this book:
•Interpersonal activity to intrapsychic state of mind. This first distinction effec-
tively captures the original distinction Staudinger (Mickler & Staudinger, 2008;
Staudinger, Do
¨rner & Mickler, 2005) makes between general and personal
wisdom: General wisdom is said to be interpersonal, whereas personal wisdom
is said to be intrapersonal. Interpersonal wisdom is also central to Edmondson’s
ethnographic findings about wisdom in Ireland and other countries.
•Subjective experience to objective artifact. This distinction captures Ardelt’s
(2004) critique of Baltes’ Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (see Baltes & Smith, 2008;
Baltes & Staudinger, 2000): Ardelt is interested in the ideal subjective experi-
ence of wise people, while Baltes believed wisdom can be contained in objective
artifacts like books or legal codes. As this is a book about personal wisdom, most
of the contributors emphasize the experiential end of this dimension.
•Self-concern (prudential coping and flourishing) to self-transcendent (selfless
concern for all known reality)—reminiscent of the Aristotelian distinction
between phronesis and sophia, respectively. This distinction is foundational to
the ideas of Rosch, and Levenson and Aldwin in their chapters.
•Rational reflection on lived experience to contemplation of experience itself
(“intellective” or “mystical” experience). This distinction is what some
contributors feel divides the ordinary wisdom needed to live a successful life
in one’s community from the extraordinary wisdom of self-transcendence. It is
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 327
in this sense that Rosch and others believe the deepest wisdom must be accessed
by a new kind of mind or spirit.
•Imperfect to (perhaps inhumanly) perfect. This distinction is often characteristic
of the theological distinction between human and divine wisdom and does not
really make an appearance in this volume, except perhaps in considering the
religious source of wisdom in the figure of Jesus in chapters by Wink and Dillon
and Ferrari et al.
Given this conceptual range, no one should expect an analytic definition of
wisdom. Rather, wisdom is more of an ideal of which particular exemplars like
Jesus or the Buddha are considered perfect examples. Indeed, several chapters rely
on exemplars and detailed case studies to understand personal wisdom rather than
try to establish an analytic definition of it.
Approaches to Wisdom Illuminated by Historical Exemplars
As Ferrari et al.’s chapter shows, dimensions tend to cluster together in exemplars
and master narratives about wisdom and wise individuals. Assmann (1994) has
distinguished four fundamental types of wisdom referred to by Wink and Dillon in
their chapter:
1. Solomon: Judicial wisdom of the ruler and judge
2. Polonius: Traditional and conservative humanist wisdom of the fathers
3. Jaques: Reflective and critical wisdom of the outsider
4. Prospero: Productive and instrumental wisdom of the scientist or magician
Three of Assmann’s four fundamental types are Shakespearean characters, but
actually she could have easily and perhaps more appropriately drawn her exemplars
from the Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Greek wisdom traditions that inspired
them. But what is important here is the realization that certain fundamental types or
stock characters are considered personally wise in both literature and in historical
documents, consistent with Ricoeur’s (1992) claim that personal identity (including
the identity of being a wise person or behaving wisely) always draws from literature
and history.
Several exemplars of wise people are put forward in this volume, including but
not limited to those identified by Assmann (1994). We review some of these
exemplars here and describe how they relate to various definitions of personal
wisdom as presented in the chapters of this book. These exemplars are organized
according to Assmann’s taxonomy. Readers with no interest in these historical
examples may choose to skip this section and proceed to the next main later section
that discusses the plausibility of a science of wisdom today. Simply note that
exemplars of wisdom cited by chapter authors almost inevitably draw from
established philosophical and religious traditions that date back over 2,000 years.
328 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
Judicial Wisdom
Solomon (died 931 BCE) is a common exemplar of the wise ruler from the Ancient
Near East wisdom tradition. In fact, he is the preeminent exemplar of biblical
wisdom and traditionally said to been the author of three of the five wisdom
books in the Bible (Proverbs, Qoheleth, and the Wisdom of Solomon). Solomon’s
wisdom involved good judgment that manifests the will of God on earth but also
included a vast knowledge of proverbs, psalms, and general knowledge. Ironically,
biblical scholars like Kugel (2007) and Crenshaw (2010) find that the historical
Solomon was not particularly wise nor even strongly associated with the wisdom
tradition of his time. For example, Solomon’s kingdom collapsed a few years after
he died because of the massive taxation he imposed on his northern subjects. A
better example of this tradition might be the Mesopotamian king Assurbanipal
(c. 685–627 BCE), who was accomplished in the scribal arts, assembled a vast library
in his palace at Nineveh, and was hailed as an exemplary king (Zamazalova
´,2011).
2
The Buddha (c. 563–483 BCE), from the Eastern wisdom tradition, is prototypi-
cal of a ruler who renounces his throne and worldly power to pursue spiritual power
and wisdom (a choice that returns again in the figure of Jesus). Closer to Solomon
and Assurbanipal in the Eastern tradition would be the Emperor Ashoka (c. 304–232
BCE) who converted to Buddhism, according to legend, after seeing the carnage of
a great battle and spent the rest of his reign engaged in great and charitable deeds
designed to improve the lives of his subjects. Curiously, although Edmondson
mentions this master narrative of the wise ruler, no chapters really draw on it—
Takahashi, Ardelt et al., and Ferrari et al.’s chapters do discuss the Buddha within a
more democratic view of personal wisdom in which people learn to better govern
themselves by drawing on the example of historical figures like Christ and Buddha.
Conservative Humanist Wisdom
The Greco-Roman humanist tradition is exemplified by Isocrates (436–338
BCE)—a rhetorician who influenced Cicero (106–143 BCE) and Seneca (4–65
AD). This view of wisdom addresses the sort of characteristics a wise person should
have (i.e., “a knowledge of things human and divine”
3
) in order to live a good life
(i.e., act as an ideal citizen). Within this tradition, to contribute effectively to one’s
political community, the wise are said to require wide-ranging expert knowledge, a
passionate commitment to the common good, emotions schooled to virtue, and the
rhetorical skills needed to convince others. Edmondson introduces this master
2
The Mesopotamian king Sulgi of Ur (c. 2094–2047 BCE) was the first to describe himself as
accomplished in the scribal arts, saying through in royal hymns that he was knew Sumerian,
Akkadian, and was fluent in several other languages, understood mathematics, and was an
accomplished musician and excelled at interpreting the signs in the entrails of sacrificial animals
(Frahm, 2011).
3
Cicero Tusc IV 26.57, de Officio II.2.5, Seneca Letters to Lucilius 89.5.
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 329
narrative of wisdom, but it is perfectly consonant with the ideas of Sternberg and
Staudinger. It also seems to inspire defining wisdom as an expertise in the funda-
mental pragmatics of life characteristic of the Berlin paradigm but also adopted by
Glu
¨ck and Bluck, and Vervaeke and Ferraro. More specifically, it encompasses
Sternberg’s understanding of wisdom as living ethically within a community.
Relatedly, this wisdom is associated with the ability to cope with life and live life
to its fullest, mentioned by Sanders and Jeste.
4
This tradition seems closely related to the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Polonius—
characterized by practical advice-giving in everyday life contexts—since this
advice is designed to allow people to live successfully and flourish in society.
The view that wisdom is a set of instructions given by one generation to the next
(parent to child or master to apprentice) is perhaps the oldest wisdom tradition
(Alster, 2005), and yet it is not one that is much referred to in the volume.
Reflective and Critical Wisdom
Plato’s Socrates (469–399 BCE) saw wisdom as acquired through a continuing
critical and reflective self-interrogation engaged in through dialogue and dialectic
interaction with others within one’s political community (or, by the time of Plato,
with other students in his academy). Wisdom here sought better “care of the soul,”
but although manifesting a love of wisdom, the Socratic never claims to be “wise”
(Edmondson, 2012). This is perhaps a better exemplar of critical wisdom than is the
Shakespearean jester, Jaques—although the character of Jaques also includes
aspects of doubt and melancholy characteristic of an outsider. Such wisdom allows
people to adopt an unconventional perspective on reality that seems integral to the
understanding of wisdom in many chapters, especially those of Ardelt et al., Glu
¨ck
and Bluck, and Ferrari et al. For Vervaeke and Ferraro, in particular, wisdom is not
an inert knowledge, but an ability to realize the relevance of information makes
wisdom transformative knowledge. And indeed self-transformation is central to
wisdom for most contributors, making wisdom inherently personal wisdom.
With Neoplatonist philosophers and especially in the approach to wisdom
adopted by Augustine (354–430 BCE), wisdom involves an inner contemplation
of experience that leads us to see through illusion and into a higher or deeper self-
transcendent reality.
5
Such authentic self-insight is often the result of having
experienced suffering and having grown from it. Using another metaphor, we find
Desert Fathers such as Anthony the Great (c. 251–356 AD) whose radical retreat
4
About the same time, Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and his followers imagined the wise as a hedonic
apolitical individual untroubled by the negative and irrational emotions, thoughts, and actions that
cause human suffering; such a wise person becomes almost god-like among a small circle of
friends. Edmondson proposes this ideal of wisdom, but no contributors seem to draw on it in their
proposals for a personal science of wisdom, and it does not seem to fit Assmann’s categorization
very easily.
5
A view also associated with Buddhism.
330 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
from society was considered a precondition for the purification essential to a
personal wisdom—a wisdom that, as Sanders and Jeste put it, is the human
embodiment of God. While contributors do not directly address this wisdom
tradition, the emphasis by Levenson and Aldwin, Rosch, and others on the contem-
plative traditions as leading to self-transcendent wisdom seems closest to it.
Productive and Instrumental Wisdom
Finally, the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Prospero is associated with knowledge of the
rules governing the cosmos world, leading to an ability to control it through magic
or sorcery (or today, science). This view of wisdom, characteristic of ancient
Mesopotamian sages or of Einstein today, is only marginally addressed in the
volume. But if understood intrapsychically, as Jung (1921/1971) understood the
ancient alchemical pursuit of wisdom, then this wisdom seems to ally itself to self-
transcendent wisdom.
6
As Edmonsdon points out, the Jungian understanding of
wisdom expresses the modern expectation that intrapsychic (rather than interper-
sonal or social) processes are central to personal wisdom, expressed as an authentic
and deep understanding of oneself.
There are clearly a wide variety of theoretical models and exemplars of personal
wisdom. What does this mean for a science of personal wisdom?—A question that
we return to momentarily. Despite this wide array of dimensions and exemplars, or
perhaps because of them, wisdom remains paradoxical in a way that defies easy
definition.
Paradoxes that Obscure a Unitary Definition of Wisdom
Wisdom is paradoxical—a point that is central to Ardelt et al.’s chapter. The
paradoxical nature of wisdom could in part explain why we observe such a diversity
of definitions. Here are some of the central paradoxes of wisdom.
Wisdom is both subjective and objective. The objective actions of the wise—or
even historical documents describing them—carry traces of their subjective
experiences of wisdom. For example, the words of the Buddha reflect his
experiences, but paradoxically our subjective experiences refer to or critique
culturally existing models of what it means to be wise (a point made by Ferrari
et al. in their chapter).
6
The Daoist alchemist conception of the wise as one who is able to transform himself into an
immortal is also far from the contemporary view of what is means to be personally wise. Even if
most contributors would agree with the importance of living in harmony with nature that is at the
core of this wisdom tradition, their notion of self-transformation is psychological, not physical.
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 331
Wisdom involves both knowledge and uncertainty. Wise people know what they
do not know and act accordingly, either to seek out new information or to accept
that some outcomes are inherently uncertain and unknowable. This point is essen-
tial to the Berlin and Bremen models of wisdom developed by Staudinger.
Wisdom is both timely and timeless. Wisdom is concerned with timeless human
predicaments (suffering, death), and yet it is designed to suit particular contexts. It
often emerges through reflection on immediate and deeply contextual personal
experiences. Both Glu
¨ck and Bluck and Ferrari et al. emphasize this in their
chapters, but it is seen most clearly in the ethnographic descriptions of wisdom
presented by Edmondson.
Wisdom involves both loss and gain. We gain wisdom sometimes through failed
expectations and loss of illusions, attachments, and aversions—losses that can be a
source of joy, as Ardelt points out, or at least of personal growth as we see in the
cases presented by Wink and Dillon.
Wisdom involves self-development through selflessness (or self-transcendence).
Awareness of one’s subjective bias overcomes it. There is a dialectical relationship
between selflessness and self-development (Levenson & Crumpler, 1996; Levitt,
1999): Only people with a deep knowledge of themselves and how their identity is
socially constructed (including meaningful obligations and responsibilities) can
develop personally to the point of overcoming their self-centeredness, a point
made by Rosch, Takahashi and by Levenson and Aldwin in their chapters.
Wisdom requires involvement through detachment. Lacking egocentric self-
centeredness, the wise have a concern for collective well-being that allows them
to be both personally detached and collectively engaged in their actions. Levenson
and Aldwin make this point in their chapter, but it is perhaps most strongly evident
in Sternberg’s discussion of teaching to promote ethical leadership.
Wisdom involves both willful (deliberate) surrender and active nonaction. Posi-
tional/situational power can achieve maximum effect with minimum effort; thus,
the freedom to be one’s authentic self requires self-transcendence (selflessness). By
living in the moment and seeing its potentials clearly, action then becomes personal
without being egocentric. This is a point made by Rosch and Takahashi and
especially by the life of the Buddha discussed by Ardelt et al.
Wisdom requires change through acceptance. By accepting how things are,
one’s perspective changes, and with that, often possibilities for action arise, some-
thing integral to Glu
¨ck and Bluck’s understanding of wisdom.
Finally, we need wisdom to understand wisdom. This is a point Sternberg has
made elsewhere (Sternberg, 1990b). And here we might consider constructivist
approaches to human development, especially Vygotsky’s (1934/1987) notion of
the zone of proximal development according to which we perform better when
supported by more expert or more knowledgeable peers or even by externalizing
cognitive functions that were originally social. On this view, we should not be
surprised if we are wiser when we have a chance to discuss with others or even if we
imagine we are doing so (Staudinger, 1996).
332 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
Can There Be a Science of Personal Wisdom?
Can the study of wisdom be its own science—we might call it sophiology—and is
such a science to be desired? Contributors to this volume seem to believe we need to
study wisdom scientifically. They do not pronounce on the question of needing a
separate science but are all convinced that the existing social sciences of sociology,
anthropology, political science, and psychology—including the psychology of
intelligence and developmental psychology—do not fully address how people can
develop optimally or how such development can be put to use to make a better
world. We suggest that even positive psychology, as understood by Seligman
(2011) is what Maxwell calls “inquiry-based,” not wisdom-oriented. This is why
Sternberg, in his chapter, is dissatisfied with theories of intelligence that do not look
at actual successful living, and Maxwell, in his chapter, calls for a full-scale reform
of university education, one that requires a paradigm shift in how we understand
science and human development.
7
While one might grant that wisdom is a legitimate theoretical and practical
problem for science, the question remains of how to study it systematically through
a scientific method. Contributors propose a wide variety of approaches to a science
of personal wisdom reflecting the different subdisciplines of the social and natural
sciences. Here are some of the main ways the science of personal wisdom has been
investigated within this volume:
• Self-report scales that assess dimensions associated with wisdom (the Three-
Dimensional Wisdom Scale for Ardelt et al.; MORE dimensions for Glu
¨ck &
Bluck; the Adult Self-Transcendence Scale for Levenson & Aldwin)
• Task performance that demonstrates exceptional judgment or insight
(Staudinger; Sternberg; Vervaeke & Ferraro)
• Intellectual history of (e.g., Buddhist) wisdom (Ardelt et al.; Rosch; Takahashi)
• Life history/autobiographical narrative analysis (Ferrari et al.; Wink & Dillon;
Yang)
• Ethnography (Edmondson)
• Brain imaging (Sanders & Jeste)
• Institutional critique (Maxwell)
One might despair at the diversity of exemplars and definitions of personal
wisdom proposed by contributors to this volume and of the wide varieties of
methods used to study it. How can there be anything like a science of wisdom
amidst all of this diversity?
We believe that having such a divergent, seemingly incoherent, field is not a
problem; in fact, the diversity of approaches is a strength. Perhaps a good analogy is
the famous 1921 symposium on intelligence that generated 14 different definitions
7
Wisdom is not mere knowledge about successful living, it is a skill that allows the wise to live
well in community (including the problem, following Howard (2010), that modern societies are
characterized by paradexity—i.e., the convergence of paradox and complexity).
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 333
of intelligence (and a 1986 follow-up symposium organized by Sternberg generated
another set of definitions with only 0.5 correlation to these earlier ones; Sternberg,
1990a). This diversity has not undermined the importance of intelligence as an area
of inquiry for over 100 years. If the chapters in this volume are any indication, the
science of wisdom seems to be in a very similar situation to the scientific study of
intelligence: Not only do definitions of wisdom differ but so do methods of studying
it scientifically.
Trading Zones for a Science of Wisdom
In order to effectively address such diversity, it is worth drawing on a notion
proposed by Peter Galison (1997) in philosophy of science as it relates to the
history of physics—usually considered one of the most stable and fruitful of the
sciences and the one that early psychologists like Fechner took as a model for his
own efforts at a truly rigorous science of psychology. According to Galison, in
order to understand the science of physics, it is important to look at how “trading
zones” were established between theory, instruments, and experimenters—an idea
he borrows from anthropology.
The idea of trading zone also makes possible a science of wisdom without
obliging everyone interested in that science to agree on a common method or
even a common understanding of wisdom. Instead, ideas about wisdom and partic-
ular research findings become boundary objects that can be traded among different
groups in their common pursuit of a science of wisdom, one whose central goal is
understanding and promoting human flourishing.
Theories of wisdom necessarily draw on ancient theories and exemplars of
wisdom, which is why almost every chapter in the volume mentions ideas and
figures from Ancient Greek and Near Eastern traditions or contemporary religions
that were founded by figures from that time. Indeed, we expect modern theories of
wisdom to refine or challenge these ancient theories of wisdom, assessing them with
new instruments in order to document, provoke, or foster particular kinds of
experience (or identify the people disposed to have such experiences).
For example, the Berlin paradigm presents a comprehensive theory of factors
that contribute to pragmatic wisdom, clearly drawing on the Greek humanist
tradition. In so doing, it challenges the Eriksonian “wise-old man” as an object of
study for the science of wisdom—a theory with its roots in the Ancient Near East.
These two different theories of wisdom both deserve to be investigated. However,
the question of method is important. Even if the connection between age and
wisdom may ultimately be best understood in terms of expertise, the Berlin
paradigm has the problem that the pragmatic expertise it associates with wisdom
lacks ecological validity as assessed in vignette tasks (Ardelt, 2004). For this
reason, not everyone is ready to accept the Berlin data as an object of trade. By
contrast, Bluck and Glu
¨ck (2004), working generally within the Berlin paradigm of
wisdom as life expertise, seem to have more ecologically valid data in the form of
334 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
autobiographical narratives. This new source of data for the Berlin theory provides
new material to trade and allows a better challenge to Erikson’s theory of wisdom as
resolving a psychosocial crisis. Staudinger’s work on personal wisdom as self-
insight characteristic of personal maturity (Mickler & Staudinger, 2008; Staudinger
et al., 2005) uses essentially the theory of wisdom proposed by Erikson and Jung
but nicely articulated in ways that allow a parallel comparison to the original Berlin
data.
Trade disputes can also occur over different self-report instruments to assess
wisdom. For example, should Ardelt’s Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS)
or Webster’s Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) be used to assess wisdom (see
Ardelt, 2011; Taylor, Bates, & Webster, 2011; Webster, Taylor, & Bates, 2011)?
The notion of a trading zone shows this question to be misguided. Self-report
questionnaires are a particular kind of instrument developed in light of particular
theories of wisdom. If different theories are used to construct these instruments,
different dimensions and different factors will necessarily be found associated with
wisdom. For example Jason and colleagues (Jason et al., 2001; Perry et al., 2002)
ultimately identify three wisdom factors (intelligence, harmony, and spirituality)
based on the implicit theories of their participants, dimensions that only partially
overlap those of Ardelt’s (2003) 3D-WS: cognition, reflection, and compassion.
Jason’s dimensions draw more directly from the Near Eastern strand of Western
wisdom as transcendental (ultimate, intuitive, spiritual wisdom), captured by
Jung’s theory of wisdom, while Ardelt’s is closer to prudential (circumstantial,
experiential) wisdom that ironically is the same humanist wisdom tradition targeted
by the Berlin paradigm, but using very different instruments. Webster’s (2007)
SAWS proposes five aspects as essential to wisdom (experience, emotional regula-
tion, reminiscence [reflection], humor, and openness) that overlap those in Glu
¨ck
and Bluck’s MORE model and also seem to consider wisdom prudential.
Likewise, the only partially overlapping list of “neural pillars of wisdom”
identified by Hall (2010) and Jeste (Jeste & Harris, 2010; Meeks & Jeste, 2009;
Sanders & Jeste, 2012) are all taken from ancient and modern theories of wisdom.
The pillars themselves are boundary objects between these theories and the
instruments developed by neuroscience to explore them in terms of individual
brain function. Neural correlates for wisdom attributes can inform those original
theories explaining how wisdom-theory attributes are embodied, but they must be
in constant trade with the original theories themselves.
Put another way, the diversity of approaches seen in this volume represents a
plurality of methodologies and perspectives and thus requires what Wilber (2006)
calls an Integral Methodological Pluralism, since no one approach can measure all
aspects of what interests us scientifically about wisdom. Certainly, it is important to
measure EEGs or other data associated with “neural pillars of wisdom,” as do
Sanders and Jeste (2012) or Hall (2010), but still learn nothing about:
1. The phenomenology of the actual experience of wisdom or wise people
2. The developmental knowledge structures required to experience wisdom
3. The specific kinds or styles of judgments wise people make
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 335
4. The hermeneutics of how different cultures interpret wisdom insights
5. The formal and informal institutionalization of wisdom insights within dif-
ferent cultures and societies, and how these affect the chances of particular
people becoming wise (something that requires social systems analyses)
6. The different time scales that Yang (2012) identifies for wisdom: (a) imme-
diate successful resolution of life’s problems and challenges, (b) long-term
successful and satisfying management of one’s life overall, and (c) genera-
tional actualizing of new possibilities for human civilization
Thus, we need to consider many supporting approaches to the science of wisdom
without trying to reduce them to a single unitary view.
Advantages of Free Trade Across Scientific Approaches to Wisdom
Adopting the notion of trading zones allows both Ardelt and Baltes to be shown
right in their understanding of wisdom from within their own perspectives: Our
personal disposition make us more or less likely to be wise in familiar
circumstances (Ardelt), but expertise in life matters will determine the stability of
our personal disposition to wisdom in times of crisis or novelty (Baltes). Likewise,
the question of how such traits and performances are embodied as “neural pillars of
wisdom” is a legitimate trading object for neuroscience. However, all these
approaches need to be understood in light of ancient wisdom traditions that date
back to our earliest historical records and are still best captured by stories and
maxims that have the remarkable power to inform our lives when we reflect on them
and take them to heart.
To the extent that these disputes over scientific data remain a source of coopera-
tive trading, these different approaches are all to the good, but sometimes it seems
that, for example, neuroscientists claim that the correct language of science is at the
neural level, a problem that Sanders and Jeste avoid in their own chapter. Still, if
everyone has a working brain that uses the pillars of wisdom identified, but not
everyone is wise, it is worth examining how the particular operation of wise brains
makes them wise. The neuroscience answer to this question can be traded with the
answers provided by other research programs, like the Berlin program, or those of
Ardelt or Glu
¨ck and Bluck that also set out to answer it.
Likewise, trade disputes can occur over whether or not the contemplative
traditions discussed by Levenson and Aldwin, Rosch, and Takahashi identify
practices associated with the development or maturity necessary for “extraordinary
wisdom.” This may be very different from the “ordinary wisdom”—what Charron
(1601) called “humane wisdom”—needed to live a successful life described in
chapters by Glu
¨ck and Bluck, Sternberg, Staudinger, and others. Meditation and
other practices are said to lead the practitioner toward wisdom defined as a higher
or deeper level of consciousness. As Levenson and Aldwin, Vervaeke and Ferraro,
and Ardelt et al. all agree, meditation is an instrument of choice to promote insight
or awakening to our own habits of thinking and reacting needed to transcend this
336 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
life or see through its illusions. However, even if true, the adequacy of the scientific
instruments to assess such insight can be debated. For example, Rosch disputes the
scientific usefulness of existing scientific measures of mindfulness.
For Glu
¨ck and Bluck, wisdom from life experience develops through MORE—
mastery, reflection, openness, emotion regulation, and empathy—skills required
to nurture and consolidate insights considered essential building blocks to wisdom
that may differ at different ages.Wisdom from life experience will require very
different skills and capacities from those needed to develop extraordinary wis-
dom, perhaps through the core features of wisdom identified by Curnow (1999)
and Levenson and Aldwin (2012): self-knowledge, detachment, self-integration,
and self-transcendence. A theory of extraordinary wisdom also brings in new
metaphors such as the notion of decentering the self or of a vertical dimension
suggested by the term “self-transcendence.” These concerns may in turn be very
different from those that will bring about the sort of wisdom inquiry Maxwell
advocates or the self-insight and ethical behavior needed to live well in commu-
nity that are the focus of chapters by Sternberg, Staudinger, and Maxwell. These
“ordinary” forms of humane wisdom can perhaps be developed by reflection on
life experiences, as proposed by Staudinger—not unlike the suggestion by Ardelt
et al., Ferrari et al., and Glu
¨ck and Bluck that we learn from our experience
through autobiographical reasoning. Ferrari et al. note that such reasoning will
necessarily make reference to cultural master narratives that are historically
embodied in specific people whom we consider to be exemplars of wisdom, a
point that resonates with that of Yang in her discussion of wisdom as involving
“real-life experiences.” Importantly, such experiences are also bound up with
particular religious and spiritual traditions, as Wink and Dillon show in their
chapter for this volume.
What this means is that, while questions about the development of wisdom are
legitimate objects for trade, particular practices (e.g., mindfulness meditation, or
other contemplative practices) will necessarily be instruments designed to provoke
experiences that are associated within a certain understanding of wisdom—whether
one in line with the Ancient Near Eastern conception of an extraordinary wisdom
revealed by God, with the Greek humanist wisdom, or with Buddhist theories of
wisdom as insight into the ultimate nature of realty.
Future Directions for a Science of Wisdom
Over 30 years ago, Clayton and Birren (1980) noted that our technological society
places a greater emphasis on the cognitive skills necessary for productivity than on
the personal wisdom needed to live a good life and create a better world. This led to
the paradox that we are materially better-off in Europe and North America than we
were 50 years ago, but we are not happier. A main goal of wisdom traditions from
ancient to modern times has been to help people better understand human nature
and its relationship to the rest of the known cosmos, with all of the paradoxes and
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 337
contradictions this entails, and the causes and consequences of human suffering and
human flourishing.
Acquiring wisdom is considered essential to optimal human flourishing
because it is wisdom that should allow us to live the best life possible—a life
in which human potential is actualized and the highest values of human truth,
love, and freedom are manifest. Wisdom is what Schwartz and Sharpe (2006) call
a “master virtue” that coordinates and calibrates all other virtues. Thus, as
Sternberg notes in his chapter, personal wisdom is also essential for ethical
behavior, something equally essential to creating a society in which we look
out for the common good.
Wisdom is an ideal, but can we chart progress toward it scientifically? We might
adapt positive psychology’s notion of a gross happiness product (GHP rather than
GDP) that can apply to whole nations (Seligman, 2011) but more modestly to
school reform—what we might call, awaiting a better name, a gross wisdom
product or GWP. In other words, we need a way to judge what Vervaeke calls the
“wisdom to foolishness” ratio of a society—an idea echoed by Walsh (2011), who
writes, “The wisdom to foolishness ratio may well be one of the most important
cultural factors determining individual and collective wellbeing, and will also
determine how much cultures support or suppress the search for wisdom (i.e.,
whether they are sophiatrophic or sophiatoxic)” (p. 113). But how should GWP
be measured and assessed?
Developing such a measure would precisely be an object of trade within a
trading zone set up by different approaches to studying wisdom. GWP assessments
of wisdom might be refinements of existing wisdom scales but could also include
short answer questions to vignettes modeled on the Berlin tasks and examples of
life reflection in light of autobiographical stories or stories of the wisdom of
others—not just the extraordinary wisdom of a Buddha or Jesus, but the ordinary
wisdom of relatives, friends, and neighbors. And just as Binet and Simon (1905)
envisaged intelligence tests that were indicative of school performance, and not an
ultimate measure of personal capability, we might imagine measures and
assessments of wisdom designed to assess whether people have core insights
acknowledged as important to a successful life (ordinary wisdom) and perhaps
even point them toward what is needed to achieve extraordinary wisdom, without
claiming to judge individual differences in the ability to become wise.
For Maxwell, wisdom will ultimately be developed by transforming institutions
of higher learning to improve the quality of social life itself—making a better
world, not better knowledge of the social world. Transforming schools and
universities such that they integrate wisdom inquiry into educational and research
practice will help personal and social wisdom flourish. According to Maxwell, the
intellectual, institutional, and cultural revolution that he envisions would have an
equivalent impact to the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, or the Enlighten-
ment in transforming the traditions and institutions of learning. What is also needed
is a strategy of knowledge mobilization to help get these wisdom insights and
practices to people who can use them to solve the problems they face in their lives.
338 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
A science of wisdom aims to be a science that promotes human flourishing,
which, as the chapters in this volume reveal, must acknowledge a spiritual side to
wisdom. This is in line with historical understanding of wisdom that predates the
split between science, art, and religion. Such a science of personal wisdom can be
both personally important and practically useful. It can provide ways to measure
and assess (and perhaps improve upon) insights from the world’s wisdom traditions
and find ways to develop formative assessments to help seekers advance along the
path to a better life for themselves and for the communities that nurture and sustain
them.
References
Alster, B. (2005). Wisdom of ancient Sumer. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging,
25(3), 275–324.
Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical review of a contemporary
operationalizations of an ancient concept. Human Development, 47, 257–285.
Ardelt, M. (2011). The measurement of wisdom: A commentary on Taylor, Bates, and Webster’s
comparison of the SAWS and 3D-WS. Experimental Aging Research, 37, 241–255.
Assmann, A. (1994). Wholesome knowledge: Concepts of wisdom in a historical and cross-
cultural perspective. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span
development and behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 187–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 56–64.
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate
mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122–136.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Me
´thodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectual des
anormaux. L’Anne
´e Psychologique, 11, 191–336.
Bluck, S., & Glu
¨ck, J. (2004). Making things better and learning a lesson: Experiencing wisdom
across the life span. Journal of Personality, 72, 543–572.
Charron, P. (1601). De la sagesse: Trois livres. Bourdeaux: Simon Millanges.
Clayton, V. P., & Birren, J. E. (1980). The development of wisdom across the life span: A
reexamination of an ancient topic. In P. B. Baltes & J. O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span develop-
ment and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 103–135). New York: Academic.
Crenshaw, J. L. (2010). Old testament wisdom: An introduction (3rd ed.). Louisville, KT:
Westminister John Knox Press.
Curnow, T. (1999). Wisdom, intuition, and ethics. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
Curnow, T. (2010). Wisdom in the ancient world. London: Duckworth.
Edmondson, R. (2012). A social interpretation of personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N. M.
Weststrate (Eds.), The scientific study of personal wisdom (pp. xx–xx). Dordrecht: Springer.
Frahm, E. (2011). Keeping company with men of learning: The king as scholar. In K. Radner & E.
Robson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cuneiform culture (pp. 508–532). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press.
Gammie, J. G., & Perdue, L. G. (1990). The sage in Ancient Israel and the Near East. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Hall, S. S. (2010). Wisdom: From philosophy to neuroscience. New York: Knopf.
Howard, A. (2010). Paradexity: The convergence of paradox and complexity. Journal of Manage-
ment Development, 29(3), 210–223.
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 339
Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., King, C., Madsen, D., Camacho, J., & Marchese, W. (2001). The
measurement of wisdom: A preliminary effort. Journal of Community Psychology, 29,
585–598.
Jeste, D. V., & Harris, J. C. (2010). Wisdom—A neuroscience perspective. JAMA: The Journal of
the American Medical Association, 304(14), 1602–1603. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1458.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published 1921).
Kugel, J. L. (2007). How to read the Bible. New York: Free Press.
Levenson, M. R., & Aldwin, C. M. (2012). The transpersonal in personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari &
N. M. Weststrate (Eds.), The scientific study of personal wisdom (pp. xx–xx). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Levenson, M. R., & Crumpler, C. A. (1996). Three models of adult development. Human
Development, 39, 135–149. doi:10.1159/000278429.
Levitt, H. M. (1999). The development of wisdom: An analysis of Tibetan Buddhist experience.
The Humanistic Psychology, 39, 86–105. doi:10.1177/0022167899392006.
Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2009). Neurobiology of wisdom: A literature overview. Archive of
General Psychiatry, 66(4), 355–365.
Mickler, C., & Staudinger, U. M. (2008). Personal wisdom: Validation and age-related differences
of a performance measure. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 787–799.
Perry, C. L., Komro, K. A., Jones, R. M., Munson, K., Williams, C. L., & Jason, L. (2002). The
measurement of wisdom and its relationship to adolescent substance use and problem
behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 12, 45–63.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.).Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Sanders, J. D., & Jeste, D. V. (2012). Neurobiological basis of personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N.
M. Weststrate (Eds.), The scientific study of personal wisdom (pp. xx–xx). Dordrecht: Springer.
Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2006). Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 377–395.
Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New
York: Free Press.
Staudinger, U. M. (1996). Wisdom and the social-interactive foundation of the mind. In P. B.
Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social
foundation of cognition (pp. 276–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staudinger, U. M., Do
¨rner, J., & Mickler, C. (2005). Wisdom and personality. In R. Sternberg & J.
Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 191–219). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Staudinger, U. M., & Glu
¨ck, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research: commonalities and
differences in a growing field. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 215–241.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990a). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990b). Understanding wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature,
origins, and development (pp. 3–9). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, M., Bates, G., & Webster, J. D. (2011). Comparing the psychometric properties of two
measures of wisdom: Predicting forgiveness and psychological well-being with the Self-
assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) and the Three-dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS). Experi-
mental Aging Research, 37, 129–141.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton,
Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original works published 1934, 1960)
Walsh, R. (2011). The varieties of wisdom: Contemplative, cross-cultural, and integral
contributions. Research in Human Development, 8, 109–127.
Webster, J. D. (2007). Measuring the character strength of wisdom. International Journal of Aging
and Human Development, 65, 163–183.
340 M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate
Webster, J. D., Taylor, M., & Bates, G. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring wisdom: A reply to
Ardelt. Experimental Aging Research, 37, 256–259.
Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and
postmodern world. Boston: Integral Books.
Yang, S.-Y. (2012). From personal striving to positive influences: Exploring wisdom in real-life
contexts. In M. Ferrari & N. M. Weststrate (Eds.), The scientific study of personal wisdom (pp.
xx–xx). Dordrecht: Springer.
Zamazalova
´, S. (2011). The education of a neo-Assyrian prince. In K. Radner & E. Robson (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of cuneiform culture (pp. 313–330). New York: Oxford University Press.
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom 341