essay on wise person

5 Qualities of the Wisest People

5. they make the best of bad situations..

Posted July 11, 2022 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• Wisdom is the key to living fulfilled lives in an increasingly complex world.
• Being able to identify the wise in our social circles can greatly increase our chances of success in all areas of our life.
• Knowing what wisdom looks like can help us make the best of less-than-desirable situations.

For those who are privileged enough, we are increasingly living in a society where we can make choices and pursue lifestyles that our grandparents would not have considered possible. Three generations ago, we were generally expected to remain living in the area in which we grew up and choose from among a few dozen careers or jobs, and our romantic prospects were limited to our immediate social circles.

Now we encourage each other to construct our lives from scratch, by following our dreams wherever they may lead us. As wonderful as this new freedom is, it also places a burden on each of us to make myriad choices and take sole responsibility for the lives we have constructed. The ability to make wise decisions may be more crucial now than ever.

Defining Wisdom

Knowing what wisdom entails and identifying who is wise may help us to live our lives in a way that is fulfilling and meaningful. For thousands of years, the discourse around wisdom has been centered on the study of philosophy and religion. But, over the past 20 years, psychologists have begun to research and define wisdom in ways that provide a picture of what a wise person looks like while providing descriptions of how they operate in the world.

Wisdom is often defined as the ability to make sound decisions and to act or advise others to behave in ways that are more likely to bring about desired outcomes. Some scholars have described wisdom as a form of practical intelligence . I’m drawn to the thought that wisdom is knowing the right thing to do, in the right way, at the right time, in the right context. If any one of these four elements is off, then a decision or action will not prove to be wise. Given the complexity of our world, it may greatly benefit us to be able to identify who is wise and how to act wisely.

Following are five attributes or abilities of wise persons:

• They self-regulate . Wise persons are able to regulate their emotions so that they are able to think clearly about what decisions and actions may bring about a positive outcome, and, yet, emotions are not the enemy of wisdom. If a decision will entail strong emotions, a wise person must be able to feel the weight of a situation in order to account for how a particular decision may affect themselves, another person, or other parties.
• They are virtuous. From philosophers such as Aristotle to the most recent psychologists who research wisdom, it is firmly believed that wise persons are virtuous people in that they act, make decisions, and counsel others in ways that are mindful of the well-being of all who are involved. A person who is highly intelligent or savvy may know how to get what they want, but, if they do so at the expense of others, they are not considered wise. Wise persons know that individuals tend to thrive in relationships in which everyone flourishes.
• They see and recognize patterns. Psychologists who study wisdom tend to agree that those who are older are not necessarily wiser, but to be wise one must have enough experience to glean from to discern how and when to apply knowledge and past experiences to new situations. There is a certain degree of intelligence needed to be able to (a) recognize ways that a present situation may have elements that resemble past occurrences; (b) consider the present situation and discern what, if any, previous knowledge or experiences may apply; and (c) discern how one may apply past learnings to what is unknown. Wise persons can recognize patterns while appreciating the uniqueness of the new circumstance.
• They navigate environments well. Robert Sternberg , a psychology professor at Cornell University, has written that one attribute of wise persons is their ability to decide between three possible responses to one’s environment when a person is not pleased with their given situation. A person can (a) simply adjust or adapt to their context, (b) seek to shape their situation, or (c) seek a new environment altogether. Most people will try to do a combination of the first two before moving to the third option. Wisdom is needed to discern whether a person can adjust or adapt without too much personal cost to themselves. One must also consider whether a person has the ability (e.g., influence or power) to bring about the desired change. If a person needs to choose a new environment, they will need wisdom to not move into another equally unsatisfying or worse situation.
• They make the best of bad situations. Most people have lived long enough to know that sometimes we are not able to get anywhere near the outcome we desire. There are many factors in the world we do not have control over, so there are times when we simply lose. But wise people know that the way we weather deep disappointment has a significant impact on the persons we become. Furthermore, they know that there may be actions we can take, or refrain from taking, that will lessen the negative and long-term impact of an undesirable outcome. Wise persons make the best of less-than-ideal situations.

Most of us live with a prevailing sense that many things are not the way they should be, that life is not fair, that disappointment is far too common for far too many, and that we far too often are having to make the most of what we’ve been given. Up until recent times, there were people in our communities who were known for their ability to help us navigate major decisions. We currently may be witnessing the generation with the most choices and the least easily identifiable help. Being able to identify who is wise and know how to make wise decisions can provide us a path forward as we seek to make the best of what life has given us.

Facebook /LinkedIn image: Bricolage/Shutterstock

Ardelt, M., & Jeste, D. V. (2018). Wisdom and hard times: The ameliorating effect of wisdom on the negative association between adverse life events and well-being. The journals of gerontology, 73(8) , 1374–1383. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw137

Gluck, J. & Westrate, N. M. (2022). The wisdom researchers and the elephant: An integrative model of wise behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 0, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10888683221094650

Grossman, I. (2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2) , 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691616672066

Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36, 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3604_2

Eric M. Brown, Ph.D. , is an assistant professor of Mental Health Counseling and Behavioral Medicine in the Department of Psychiatry at Boston University’s School of Medicine.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

What is wisdom? Philosophers, psychologists, spiritual leaders, poets, novelists, life coaches, and a variety of other important thinkers have tried to understand the concept of wisdom. This entry will provide a brief and general overview, and analysis of, several philosophical views on the topic of wisdom. It is not intended to capture the many interesting and important approaches to wisdom found in other fields of inquiry. Moreover, this entry will focus on several major ideas in the Western philosophical tradition. In particular, it will focus on five general approaches to understanding what it takes to be wise: (1) wisdom as epistemic humility, (2) wisdom as epistemic accuracy, (3) wisdom as knowledge, (4) a hybrid theory of wisdom, and (5) wisdom as rationality.

1. Wisdom as Epistemic Humility

2. wisdom as epistemic accuracy, 3. wisdom as knowledge, 4. hybrid theory, 5. wisdom as rationality, other internet resources, related entries.

Socrates’ view of wisdom, as expressed by Plato in The Apology (20e-23c), is sometimes interpreted as an example of a humility theory of wisdom (see, for example, Ryan 1996 and Whitcomb, 2010). In Plato’s Apology , Socrates and his friend Chaerephon visit the oracle at Delphi. As the story goes, Chaerephon asks the oracle whether anyone is wiser than Socrates. The oracle’s answer is that Socrates is the wisest person. Socrates reports that he is puzzled by this answer since so many other people in the community are well known for their extensive knowledge and wisdom, and yet Socrates claims that he lacks knowledge and wisdom. Socrates does an investigation to get to the bottom of this puzzle. He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. As one would expect, Socrates’ investigation reveals that those who claim to have knowledge either do not really know any of the things they claim to know, or else know far less than they proclaim to know. The most knowledgeable of the bunch, the craftsmen, know about their craft, but they claim to know things far beyond the scope of their expertise. Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know things he does not know, nor the vice of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom. In this revelation, we have a potential resolution to the wisdom puzzle in The Apology .

Although the story may initially appear to deliver a clear theory of wisdom, it is actually quite difficult to capture a textually accurate and plausible theory here. One interpretation is that Socrates is wise because he, unlike the others, believes he is not wise, whereas the poets, politicians, and craftsmen arrogantly and falsely believe they are wise. This theory, which will be labeled Humility Theory 1 (H1), is simply (see, for example, Lehrer & Smith 1996, 3):

Humility Theory 1 (H1) : S is wise iff S believes s/he is not wise.

This is a tempting and popular interpretation because Socrates certainly thinks he has shown that the epistemically arrogant poets, politicians, and craftsmen lack wisdom. Moreover, Socrates claims that he is not wise, and yet, if we trust the oracle, Socrates is actually wise.

Upon careful inspection, (H1) is not a reasonable interpretation of Socrates’ view. Although Socrates does not boast of his own wisdom, he does believe the oracle. If he was convinced that he was not wise, he would have rejected the oracle and gone about his business because he would not find any puzzle to unravel. Clearly, he believes, on some level, that he is wise. The mystery is: what is wisdom if he has it and the others lack it? Socrates nowhere suggests that he has become unwise after believing the oracle. Thus, (H1) is not an acceptable interpretation of Socrates’ view.

Moreover, (H1) is false. Many people are clear counterexamples to (H1). Many people who believe they are not wise are correct in their self-assessment. Thus, the belief that one is not wise is not a sufficient condition for wisdom. Furthermore, it seems that the belief that one is not wise is not necessary for wisdom. It seems plausible to think that a wise person could be wise enough to realize that she is wise. Too much modesty might get in the way of making good decisions and sharing what one knows. If one thinks Socrates was a wise person, and if one accepts that Socrates did, in fact, accept that he was wise, then Socrates himself is a counterexample to (H1). The belief that one is wise could be a perfectly well justified belief for a wise person. Having the belief that one is wise does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility that the person is wise. Nor does it guarantee the vice of arrogance. We should hope that a wise person would have a healthy dose of epistemic self-confidence, appreciate that she is wise, and share her understanding of reality with the rest of us who could benefit from her wisdom. Thus, the belief that one is not wise is not required for wisdom.

(H1) focused on believing one is not wise. Another version of the humility theory is worth considering. When Socrates demonstrates that a person is not wise, he does so by showing that the person lacks some knowledge that he or she claims to possess. Thus, one might think that Socrates’ view could be better captured by focusing on the idea that wise people believe they lack knowledge (rather than lacking wisdom). That is, one might consider the following view:

Humility Theory 2 (H2): S is wise iff S believes S does not know anything.

Unfortunately, this interpretation is not any better than (H1). It falls prey to problems similar to those that refuted (H1) both as an interpretation of Socrates, and as an acceptable account of wisdom. Moreover, remember that Socrates admits that the craftsmen do have some knowledge. Socrates might have considered them to be wise if they had restricted their confidence and claims to knowledge to what they actually did know about their craft. Their problem was that they professed to have knowledge beyond their area of expertise. The problem was not that they claimed to have knowledge.

Before turning to alternative approaches to wisdom, it is worth mentioning another interpretation of Socrates that fits with the general spirit of epistemic humility. One might think that what Socrates is establishing is that his wisdom is found in his realization that human wisdom is not a particularly valuable kind of wisdom. Only the gods possess the kind of wisdom that is truly valuable. This is clearly one of Socrates’ insights, but it does not provide us with an understanding of the nature of wisdom. It tells us only of its comparative value. Merely understanding this evaluative insight would not, for reasons similar to those discussed with (HP1) and (HP2), make one wise.

Humility theories of wisdom are not promising, but they do, perhaps, provide us with some important character traits associated with wise people. Wise people, one might argue, possess epistemic self-confidence, yet lack epistemic arrogance. Wise people tend to acknowledge their fallibility, and wise people are reflective, introspective, and tolerant of uncertainty. Any acceptable theory of wisdom ought to be compatible with such traits. However, those traits are not, in and of themselves, definitive of wisdom.

Socrates can be interpreted as providing an epistemic accuracy, rather than an epistemic humility, theory of wisdom. The poets, politicians, and craftsmen all believe they have knowledge about topics on which they are considerably ignorant. Socrates, one might argue, believes he has knowledge when, and only when, he really does have knowledge. Perhaps wise people restrict their confidence to propositions for which they have knowledge or, at least, to propositions for which they have excellent justification. Perhaps Socrates is better interpreted as having held an Epistemic Accuracy Theory such as:

Epistemic Accuracy Theory 1 (EA1) : S is wise iff for all p , ( S believes S knows p iff S knows p .)

According to (EA1), a wise person is accurate about what she knows and what she does not know. If she really knows p , she believes she knows p . And, if she believes she knows p , then she really does know p . (EA1) is consistent with the idea that Socrates accepts that he is wise and with the idea that Socrates does have some knowledge. (EA1) is a plausible interpretation of the view Socrates endorses, but it is not a plausible answer in the search for an understanding of wisdom. Wise people can make mistakes about what they know. Socrates, Maimonides, King Solomon, Einstein, Goethe, Gandhi, and every other candidate for the honor of wisdom have held false beliefs about what they did and did not know. It is easy to imagine a wise person being justified in believing she possesses knowledge about some claim, and also easy to imagine that she could be shown to be mistaken, perhaps long after her death. If (EA1) is true, then just because a person believes she has knowledge when she does not, she is not wise. That seems wrong. It is hard to imagine that anyone at all is, or ever has been, wise if (EA1) is correct.

We could revise the Epistemic Accuracy Theory to get around this problem. We might only require that a wise person’s belief is highly justified when she believes she has knowledge. That excuses people with bad epistemic luck.

Epistemic Accuracy 2 (EA2) : S is wise iff for all p , ( S believes S knows p iff S ’s belief in p is highly justified.)

(EA2) gets around the problem with (EA1). The Socratic Method challenges one to produce reasons for one’s view. When Socrates’ interlocutor is left dumbfounded, or reduced to absurdity, Socrates rests his case. One might argue that through his questioning, Socrates reveals not that his opponents lack knowledge because their beliefs are false, but he demonstrates that his opponents are not justified in holding the views they profess to know. Since the craftsmen, poets, and politicians questioned by Socrates all fail his interrogation, they were shown, one might argue, to have claimed to have knowledge when their beliefs were not even justified.

Many philosophers would hesitate to endorse this interpretation of what is going on in The Apology . They would argue that a failure to defend one’s beliefs from Socrates’ relentless questioning does not show that a person is not justified in believing a proposition. Many philosophers would argue that having very good evidence, or forming a belief via a reliable process, would be sufficient for justification.

Proving, or demonstrating to an interrogator, that one is justified is another matter, and not necessary for simply being justified. Socrates, some might argue, shows only that the craftsmen, poets, and politicians cannot defend themselves from his questions. He does not show, one might argue, that the poets, politicians, and craftsmen have unjustified beliefs. Since we gain very little insight into the details of the conversation in this dialogue, it would be unfair to dismiss this interpretation on these grounds. Perhaps Socrates did show, through his intense questioning, that the craftsmen, poets, and politicians formed and held their beliefs without adequate evidence or formed and held them through unreliable belief forming processes. Socrates only reports that they did not know all that they professed to know. Since we do not get to witness the actual questioning as we do in Plato’s other dialogues, we should not reject (EA2) as an interpretation of Socrates’ view of wisdom in The Apology .

Regardless of whether (EA2) is Socrates’ view, there are problems for (EA2) as an account of what it means to be wise. Even if (EA2) is exactly what Socrates meant, some philosophers would argue that one could be justified in believing a proposition, but not realize that she is justified. If that is a possible situation for a wise person to be in, then she might be justified, but fail to believe she has knowledge. Could a wise person be in such a situation, or is it necessary that a wise person would always recognize the epistemic value of what he or she believes? [ 1 ] If this situation is impossible, then this criticism could be avoided. There is no need to resolve this issue here because (EA1) and (EA2) fall prey to another, much less philosophically thorny and controversial problem.

(EA1) and (EA2) suffer from a similar, and very serious, problem. Imagine a person who has very little knowledge. Suppose further, that the few things she does know are of little or no importance. She could be the sort of person that nobody would ever go to for information or advice. Such a person could be very cautious and believe that she knows only what she actually knows. Although she would have accurate beliefs about what she does and does not know, she would not be wise. This shows that (EA1) is flawed. As for (EA2), imagine that she believes she knows only what she is actually justified in believing. She is still not wise. It should be noted, however, that although accuracy theories do not provide an adequate account of wisdom, they reveal an important insight. Perhaps a necessary condition for being wise is that wise people think they have knowledge only when their beliefs are highly justified. Or, even more simply, perhaps wise people have epistemically justified, or rational, beliefs.

An alternative approach to wisdom focuses on the more positive idea that wise people are very knowledgeable people. There are many views in the historical and contemporary philosophical literature on wisdom that have knowledge, as opposed to humility or accuracy, as at least a necessary condition of wisdom. Aristotle ( Nichomachean Ethics VI, ch. 7), Descartes ( Principles of Philosophy ), Richard Garrett (1996), John Kekes (1983), Keith Lehrer & Nicholas Smith (1996), Robert Nozick (1989), Plato ( The Republic ), Sharon Ryan (1996, 1999), Valerie Tiberius (2008), Dennis Whitcomb (2010) and Linda Zagzebski (1996) for example, have all defended theories of wisdom that require a wise person to have knowledge of some sort. All of these views very clearly distinguish knowledge from expertise on a particular subject. Moreover, all of these views maintain that wise people know “what is important.” The views differ, for the most part, over what it is important for a wise person to know, and on whether there is any behavior, action, or way of living, that is required for wisdom.

Aristotle distinguished between two different kinds of wisdom, theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is, according to Aristotle, “scientific knowledge, combined with intuitive reason, of the things that are highest by nature” ( Nicomachean Ethics , VI, 1141b). For Aristotle, theoretical wisdom involves knowledge of necessary, scientific, first principles and propositions that can be logically deduced from them. Aristotle’s idea that scientific knowledge is knowledge of necessary truths and their logical consequences is no longer a widely accepted view. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, I will consider a theory that reflects the spirit of Aristotle’s view on theoretical wisdom, but without the controversy about the necessary or contingent nature of scientific knowledge. Moreover, it will combine scientific knowledge with other kinds of factual knowledge, including knowledge about history, philosophy, music, literature, mathematics, etc. Consider the following, knowledge based, theory of wisdom:

Wisdom as Extensive Factual Knowledge (WFK) : S is wise iff S has extensive factual knowledge about science, history, philosophy, literature, music, etc.

According to (WFK), a wise person is a person who knows a lot about the universe and our place in it. She would have extensive knowledge about the standard academic subjects. There are many positive things to say about (WFK). (WFK) nicely distinguishes between narrow expertise and knowledge of the mundane, from the important, broad, and general kind of knowledge possessed by wise people. As Aristotle puts it, “…we think that some people are wise in general, not in some particular field or in any other limited respect…” ( Nicomachean Ethics , Book 6, 1141a).

The main problem for (WFK) is that some of the most knowledgeable people are not wise. Although they have an abundance of very important factual knowledge, they lack the kind of practical know-how that is a mark of a wise person. Wise people know how to get on in the world in all kinds of situations and with all kinds of people. Extensive factual knowledge is not enough to give us what a wise person knows. As Robert Nozick points out, “Wisdom is not just knowing fundamental truths, if these are unconnected with the guidance of life or with a perspective on its meaning” (1989, 269). There is more to wisdom than intelligence and knowledge of science and philosophy or any other subject matter. Aristotle is well aware of the limitations of what he calls theoretical wisdom. However, rather than making improvements to something like (WFK), Aristotle distinguishes it as one kind of wisdom. Other philosophers would be willing to abandon (WFK), that is, claim that it provides insufficient conditions for wisdom, and add on what is missing.

Aristotle has a concept of practical wisdom that makes up for what is missing in theoretical wisdom. In Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics , he claims, “This is why we say Anaxagoras, Thales, and men like them have philosophic but not practical wisdom, when we see them ignorant of what is to their own advantage, and why we say that they know things that are remarkable, admirable, difficult, and divine, but useless; viz. because it is not human goods they seek” (1141a). Knowledge of contingent facts that are useful to living well is required in Aristotle’s practical wisdom. According to Aristotle, “Now it is thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for himself, not in some particular respect, e.g. about what sorts of thing conduce to health or to strength, but about what sorts of thing conduce to the good life in general” ( Nichomachean Ethics , VI, 1140a–1140b). Thus, for Aristotle, practical wisdom requires knowing, in general, how to live well. Many philosophers agree with Aristotle on this point. However, many would not be satisfied with the conclusion that theoretical wisdom is one kind of wisdom and practical wisdom another. Other philosophers, including Linda Zagzebski (1996), agree that there are these two types of wisdom that ought to be distinguished.

Let’s proceed, without argument, on the assumption that it is possible to have a theory of one, general, kind of wisdom. Wisdom, in general, many philosophers would argue, requires practical knowledge about living. What Aristotle calls theoretical wisdom, many would contend, is not wisdom at all. Aristotle’s theoretical wisdom is merely extensive knowledge or deep understanding. Nicholas Maxwell (1984), in his argument to revolutionize education, argues that we should be teaching for wisdom, which he sharply distinguishes from standard academic knowledge. Similar points are raised by Robert Sternberg (2001) and Andrew Norman (1996). Robert Nozick holds a view very similar to Aristotle’s theory of practical wisdom, but Nozick is trying to capture the essence of wisdom, period. He is not trying to define one, alternative, kind of wisdom. Nozick claims, “Wisdom is what you need to understand in order to live well and cope with the central problems and avoid the dangers in the predicaments human beings find themselves in” (1989, 267). And, John Kekes maintains that, “What a wise man knows, therefore, is how to construct a pattern that, given the human situation, is likely to lead to a good life” (1983, 280). More recently, Valerie Tiberius (2008) has developed a practical view that connects wisdom with well being, requiring, among other things, that a wise person live the sort of life that he or she could sincerely endorse upon reflection. Such practical views of wisdom could be expressed, generally, as follows.

Wisdom as Knowing How To Live Well (KLW) : S is wise iff S knows how to live well.

This view captures Aristotle’s basic idea of practical wisdom. It also captures an important aspect of views defended by Nozick, Plato, Garrett, Kekes, Maxwell, Ryan, and Tiberius. Although giving an account of what it means to know how to live well may prove as difficult a topic as providing an account of wisdom, Nozick provides a very illuminating start.

Wisdom is not just one type of knowledge, but diverse. What a wise person needs to know and understand constitutes a varied list: the most important goals and values of life – the ultimate goal, if there is one; what means will reach these goals without too great a cost; what kinds of dangers threaten the achieving of these goals; how to recognize and avoid or minimize these dangers; what different types of human beings are like in their actions and motives (as this presents dangers or opportunities); what is not possible or feasible to achieve (or avoid); how to tell what is appropriate when; knowing when certain goals are sufficiently achieved; what limitations are unavoidable and how to accept them; how to improve oneself and one’s relationships with others or society; knowing what the true and unapparent value of various things is; when to take a long-term view; knowing the variety and obduracy of facts, institutions, and human nature; understanding what one’s real motives are; how to cope and deal with the major tragedies and dilemmas of life, and with the major good things too. (1989, 269)

With Nozick’s explanation of what one must know in order to live well, we have an interesting and quite attractive, albeit somewhat rough, theory of wisdom. As noted above, many philosophers, including Aristotle and Zagzebski would, however, reject (KLW) as the full story on wisdom. Aristotle and Zagzebski would obviously reject (KLW) as the full story because they believe theoretical wisdom is another kind of wisdom, and are unwilling to accept that there is a conception of one, general, kind of wisdom. Kekes claims, “The possession of wisdom shows itself in reliable, sound, reasonable, in a word, good judgment. In good judgment, a person brings his knowledge to bear on his actions. To understand wisdom, we have to understand its connection with knowledge, action, and judgment” (1983, 277). Kekes adds, “Wisdom ought also to show in the man who has it” (1983, 281). Many philosophers, therefore, think that wisdom is not restricted even to knowledge about how to live well. Tiberius thinks the wise person’s actions reflect their basic values. These philosophers believe that being wise also includes action. A person could satisfy the conditions of any of the principles we have considered thus far and nevertheless behave in a wildly reckless manner. Wildly reckless people are, even if very knowledgeable about life, not wise.

Philosophers who are attracted to the idea that knowing how to live well is a necessary condition for wisdom might want to simply tack on a success condition to (KLW) to get around cases in which a person knows all about living well, yet fails to put this knowledge into practice. Something along the lines of the following theory would capture this idea.

Wisdom as Knowing How To, and Succeeding at, Living Well (KLS) : S is wise iff (i) S knows how to live well, and (ii) S is successful at living well.

The idea of the success condition is that one puts one’s knowledge into practice. Or, rather than using the terminology of success, one might require that a wise person’s beliefs and values cohere with one’s actions (Tiberius, 2008). The main idea is that one’s actions are reflective of one’s understanding of what it means to live well. A view along the lines of (KLS) would be embraced by Aristotle and Zagzebski (for practical wisdom), and by Kekes, Nozick, and Tiberius. (KLS) would not be universally embraced, however (see Ryan 1999, for further criticisms). One criticism of (KLS) is that one might think that all the factual knowledge required by (WFK) is missing from this theory. One might argue that (WFK), the view that a wise person has extensive factual knowledge, was rejected only because it did not provide sufficient conditions for wisdom. Many philosophers would claim that (WFK) does provide a necessary condition for wisdom. A wise person, such a critic would argue, needs to know how to live well (as described by Nozick), but she also needs to have some deep and far-reaching theoretical, or factual, knowledge that may have very little impact on her daily life, practical decisions, or well being. In the preface of his Principles of Philosophy , Descartes insisted upon factual knowledge as an important component of wisdom. Descartes wrote, “It is really only God alone who has Perfect Wisdom, that is to say, who has a complete knowledge of the truth of all things; but it may be said that men have more wisdom or less according as they have more or less knowledge of the most important truths” ( Principles , 204). Of course, among those important truths, one might claim, are truths about living well, as well as knowledge in the basic academic subject areas.

Moreover, one might complain that the insight left standing from Epistemic Accuracy theories is also missing from (KLS). One might think that a wise person not only knows a lot, and succeeds at living well, she also confines her claims to knowledge (or belief that she has knowledge) to those propositions that she is justified in believing.

One way to try to accommodate the various insights from the theories considered thus far is in the form of a hybrid theory. One such idea is:

S is wise iff S has extensive factual and theoretical knowledge. S knows how to live well. S is successful at living well. S has very few unjustified beliefs.

Although this Hybrid Theory has a lot going for it, there are a number of important criticisms to consider. Dennis Whitcomb (2010) objects to all theories of wisdom that include a living well condition, or an appreciation of living well condition. He gives several interesting objections against such views. Whitcomb thinks that a person who is deeply depressed and totally devoid of any ambition for living well could nevertheless be wise. As long as such a person is deeply knowledgeable about academic subjects and knows how to live well, that person would have all they need for wisdom. With respect to a very knowledgeable and deeply depressed person with no ambition but to stay in his room, he claims, “If I ran across such a person, I would take his advice to heart, wish him a return to health, and leave the continuing search for sages to his less grateful advisees. And I would think he was wise despite his depression-induced failure to value or desire the good life. So I think that wisdom does not require valuing or desiring the good life.”

In response to Whitcomb’s penetrating criticism, one could argue that a deeply depressed person who is wise, would still live as well as she can, and would still value living well, even if she falls far short of perfection. Such a person would attempt to get help to deal with her depression. If she really does not care at all, she may be very knowledgeable, but she is not wise. There is something irrational about knowing how to live well and refusing to try to do so. Such irrationality is not compatible with wisdom. A person with this internal conflict may be extremely clever and shrewd, one to listen to on many issues, one to trust on many issues, and may even win a Nobel Prize for her intellectual greatness, but she is not admirable enough, and rationally consistent enough, to be wise. Wisdom is a virtue and a way of living, and it requires more than smart ideas and knowledge.

Aristotle held that “it is evident that it is impossible to be practically wise without being good” ( Nicomachean Ethics , 1144a, 36–37). Most of the philosophers mentioned thus far would include moral virtue in their understanding of what it means to live well. However, Whitcomb challenges any theory of wisdom that requires moral virtue. Whitcomb contends that a deeply evil person could nevertheless be wise.

Again, it is important to contrast being wise from being clever and intelligent. If we think of wisdom as the highest, or among the highest, of human virtues, then it seems incompatible with a deeply evil personality.

There is, however, a very serious problem with the Hybrid Theory. Since so much of what was long ago considered knowledge has been abandoned, or has evolved, a theory that requires truth (through a knowledge condition) would exclude almost all people who are now long dead, including Hypatia, Socrates, Confucius, Aristotle, Homer, Lao Tzu, etc. from the list of the wise. Bad epistemic luck, and having lived in the past, should not count against being wise. But, since truth is a necessary condition for knowledge, bad epistemic luck is sufficient to undermine a claim to knowledge. What matters, as far as being wise goes, is not that a wise person has knowledge, but that she has highly justified and rational beliefs about a wide variety of subjects, including how to live well, science, philosophy, mathematics, history, geography, art, literature, psychology, and so on. And the wider the variety of interesting topics, the better. Another way of developing this same point is to imagine a person with highly justified beliefs about a wide variety of subjects, but who is unaware that she is trapped in the Matrix, or some other skeptical scenario. Such a person could be wise even if she is sorely lacking knowledge. A theory of wisdom that focuses on having rational or epistemically justified beliefs, rather than the higher standard of actually having knowledge, would be more promising. Moreover, such a theory would incorporate much of what is attractive about epistemic humility, and epistemic accuracy, theories.

The final theory to be considered here is an attempt to capture all that is good, while avoiding all the serious problems of the other theories discussed thus far. Perhaps wisdom is a deep and comprehensive kind of rationality (Ryan, 2012).

Deep Rationality Theory (DRT): S is wise iff S has a wide variety of epistemically justified beliefs on a wide variety of valuable academic subjects. S has a wide variety of justified beliefs on how to live rationally (epistemically, morally, and practically). S is committed to living rationally. S has very few unjustified beliefs and is sensitive to her limitations.

In condition (1), DRT takes account of what is attractive about some knowledge theories by requiring epistemically justified beliefs about a wide variety of standard academic subjects. Condition (2) takes account of what is attractive about theories that require knowledge about how to live well. For example, having justified beliefs about how to live in a practically rational way would include having a well-reasoned strategy for dealing with the practical aspects of life. Having a rational plan does not require perfect success. It requires having good reasons behind one’s actions, responding appropriately to, and learning from, one’s mistakes, and having a rational plan for all sorts of situations and problems. Having justified beliefs about how to live in a morally rational way would not involve being a moral saint, but would require that one has good reasons supporting her beliefs about what is morally right and wrong, and about what one morally ought and ought not do in a wide variety of circumstances. Having justified beliefs about living in an emotionally rational way would involve, not dispassion, but having justified beliefs about what is, and what is not, an emotionally rational response to a situation. For example, it is appropriate to feel deeply sad when dealing with the loss of a loved one. But, ordinarily, feeling deeply sad or extremely angry is not an appropriate emotion to spilled milk. A wise person would have rational beliefs about the emotional needs and behaviors of other people.

Condition (3) ensures that the wise person live a life that reflects what she or he is justified in believing is a rational way to live. In condition (4), DRT respects epistemic humility. Condition (4) requires that a wise person not believe things without epistemic justification. The Deep Rationality Theory rules out all of the unwise poets, politicians, and craftsmen that were ruled out by Socrates. Wise people do not think they know when they lack sufficient evidence. Moreover, wise people are not epistemically arrogant.

The Deep Rationality Theory does not require knowledge or perfection. But it does require rationality, and it accommodates degrees of wisdom. It is a promising theory of wisdom.

• Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics , in The Basic Works of Aristotle , Richard McKeon, New York: Random House, 1941, pp. 935–1112.
• Garrett, R., 1996, “Three Definitions of Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 221–232.
• Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy , in The Philosophical Works of Descartes , Volume 1, E. Haldane and G. Ross (trans. and eds.), London: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 131–199
• Descartes, R., Principles of Philosophy , in Philosophical Works , E. Haldane and G. Ross (trans. and eds.), London: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 201–302.
• Kekes, J., 1983, “Wisdom,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 20(3): 277–286.
• Lehrer, Keith, B. Jeannie Lum, Beverly A. Slichta, and Nicholas D. Smith (eds.), 1996, Knowledge, Teaching, and Wisdom , Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
• Lehrer, K., and N. Smith, 1996, “Introduction,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 3–17.
• Maxwell, N., 1984, From Knowledge to Wisdom , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Norman, A., 1996, “Teaching Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 253–265.
• Nozick, R., 1989, “What is Wisdom and Why Do Philosophers Love it So?” in The Examined Life , New York: Touchstone Press, pp. 267–278.
• Plato, The Apology , in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 3–26.
• Plato, The Republic , in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 575–844.
• Ryan, S., 1996, “Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 233–242.
• –––, 1999, “What is Wisdom?” Philosophical Studies , 93: 119–139.
• –––, 2012, “Wisdom, Knowledge, and Rationality,” Acta Analytica , 27(2): 99–112.
• Sternberg, R., 2001, “Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings,” Educational Psychologist , 36(4): 227–245.
• Tiberius, V., 2008, The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Whitcomb, D., 2010, “Wisdom,” in Routledge Companion to Epistemology , S. Bernecker and D. Pritchard (eds.), London: Routledge.
• Zagzebski, L., 1996, Virtues of the Mind , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

The Wisdom Page http://www.wisdompage.com/

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

evidence | justification, epistemic: coherentist theories of | justification, epistemic: foundationalist theories of | justification, epistemic: internalist vs. externalist conceptions of | knowledge: analysis of | modesty and humility | reliabilist epistemology

Copyright © 2013 by Sharon Ryan < sharon . ryan @ mail . wvu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Wisdom Isn't About What You Think, but How You Think

March 11, 2021

by Alex Steullet, Kintopia

As a wise man once said, "What does wisdom mean, anyway?" It's a trait revered by cultures around the world, yet still shrouded in mystery and misconceptions. Does wisdom come naturally with age? Is it enough to rack up a lot of life experience? Is wisdom an individual pursuit, or a collective one? Are our workplaces conducive to developing wisdom? 

To find answers—and perhaps become a bit wiser in the process—we sat down with award-winning wisdom researcher and associate professor of psychology at the University of Waterloo, Igor Grossmann. He helped break down wisdom into its psychological components, and gave some advice on how to nurture our own burgeoning wisdom. 

Thinking about thinking

Alex: I took some psychology classes back in university, but not a single one of my teachers talked about your area of expertise: wisdom. What is wisdom from a psychological standpoint, and how is it different from knowledge or experience?

Igor:  Generally, when people talk about wisdom—whether in philosophy or psychology—they focus on good or sound judgment. Here, the perspective that my lab follows is to say that wisdom concerns how people deal with practical issues in everyday life.

This perspective isn't new. You can find a similar approach in the works of Aristotle, as well as in East Asia, for example in the writings of Lao Zi or Confucius. What's interesting is that many philosophical perspectives relate to two sets of processes that have recently come into the limelight in psychology.

The first set concerns metacognition—in other words, thinking about thinking, but also reasoning about feelings and the goals you want to achieve. Wisdom is in part the ability to focus on how to get a better perspective on yourself and your situation, as well as how to practically resolve problematic situations and move ahead.

The second set involves your moral aspirations. I use the term "aspirations" because oftentimes you may want to do good, but can't due to the constraints of the situation, or due to a conflict between different moral pursuits. In challenging situations, wisdom can often involve figuring out how to balance between the willingness to cooperate with others on the one hand and the pursuit of truth on the other hand.

Igor:  The formulation of wisdom as sound judgment through the lens of metacognition and moral aspirations is different from knowledge or experience. Knowledge is not enough to be wise. You can have a lot of knowledge but no way of applying it in your life, like having a brain with the storage of a supercomputer but still being incapable of smooth social interaction with other people. That's why you need those metacognitive processes.

As for experience, the problem is that it's not necessarily beneficial. Experiences can be traumatic and lead to psychological problems. There is also very domain-specific experience, which doesn't translate to other areas in life. If you're very experienced at using a certain form to fill out your taxes, that experience may no longer be useful the day you have to use a different form. 

The question then becomes: When put into a challenging life situation, does the person with experience fare better than a random person pulled off the street? I don't know, it depends on the type of experience.

Alex: Does that mean that wisdom is not domain specific? Once you're wise, you're generally wise across domains?

Igor:  Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle emphasized that wisdom is about figuring out what strategies fit what situations. Theoretically, metacognitive processes should be applicable across all domains. However, that doesn't mean you'll be able to respond similarly to every situation. The likelihood you will show wisdom depends on a lot of factors, like prior exposure, experience, socialization, upbringing, how you understand the situation in front of you, and so on.

Alex: Is wisdom defined the same way around the world?

Igor:  There are different flavors, some cultures emphasize certain things more, and the terms vary. For example, the technical terms Christians use to talk about wisdom, focusing on virtues, is very different from Buddhist or Confucian traditions. However, if you break the terms down into their psychological components, you'll find that the focus on metacognitive processes occurs in most cultures.

Wisdom as a social process

Alex: What distinguishes a wise person from an unwise person? Is it just a matter of how efficiently they perform metacognitive tasks?

Igor:  Wisdom is not about efficiency. A fighter pilot is very efficient at retrieving information and executing complex tasks, but that doesn't make them wise. Metacognition is about taking the time to look beyond snap judgments, figuring out how to consider multiple interests, where to look for unknown factors, and figuring out how to balance them.

Instead, what differentiates a wise person from an unwise person is their process of reasoning. They don't rely on a single, top-down algorithm to solve all problems. They reflect in a less algotithmic, top-down fashion, and instead consider a breadth of perspectives, including outside perspectives. The quality of that reflection is a key criterion of wisdom.

Alex: How can people become wiser?

Igor:  If I knew the answer to that question, I'd probably be a billionaire guru!  (laugh)

We've only made serious empirical research advances in the last 30 years, and hence there is more speculation than rigorous scientific research on this topic. One thing we've noticed is that some people develop wisdom over time through repeated exposure to  challenging situations . Those people learn to take more of a back seat, gain some distance—almost like a distant observer—and from that position they can improve their metacognitive process, leading to a more sound reflection. If you focus on that improvement, you can train yourself over time.

Alex: How about in a company setting?

Igor:  In a company setting, you can emphasize group-related activities. There is  research  showing you're more likely to display wisdom in a social context. If you track people over time, you'll find that those who interact more with coworkers or have people they care about will be wiser. The reason we see this is likely because being in a group confronts us with different mindsets; different viewpoints that challenge our preconceptions.

Another point we've noticed is that you can encourage building wisdom by having mentor-mentee pairs. People do that quite a lot in the workplace, but the focus is often on the mentee. I think it's also interesting to focus on the mentor, because when you're in a teaching role, you tend to shift your perspective and start thinking of issues differently. A similar thing happens when you become a parent. There's a  benefit  to observing others making decisions rather than doing so yourself.

Finally, a useful idea is to embrace the fact that you will fail. This is a radical idea for businesses. I'm not talking about the Silicon Valley way of wearing failure as a badge of honor and bragging about it—that would be antithetical to what I have in mind! What I mean is admitting your limitations, being willing to learn from them, and sharing with your group the wrong turns you took, as well as strategies more likely to lead to success.

Alex: I had always associated wisdom with a lot of work on the self, so it's interesting that you mention all these social elements!

Igor:  We had this debate among wisdom scholars: Can you be wise if you're stranded alone on a desert island like in the movie "Cast Away," with Wilson the anthropomorphized volleyball as your only friend? My position is that actually, you can, but only as long as you have Wilson to talk to!

Humans are social animals that evolved to communicate with each other, coordinate our activities, and plan for the future together. If you put us in a box and ask us to make decisions with no consideration for social context, that's contrary to our capabilities as social animals.

Alex: Does that mean that in my company, if I want to become wiser, I need to interact with my coworkers more?

Igor:  Probably, unless you have your own Wilson.  (laugh)

Older doesn't necessarily mean wiser

Alex: Is wisdom a function of age? Is it even possible for a young person to be wise?

Igor:  We don't know; we have little to no evidence that can tell us whether or not wisdom is a function of age. The problem is that if you look at two different age groups, it's impossible to know if the differences you're observing are because of their age itself, or because of the culture they grew up in.

We know from research that most cognitive abilities decline with age, starting when you're in your twenties. Crystallized intelligence—which is the knowledge you build up over time—is something you can keep accumulating into your seventies or eighties provided you stay healthy, but that will decline eventually as well.

For wisdom, we don't know. Adults are definitely more likely than children to engage in metacognitive processes, but we don't have studies that track the same person over a long period of time. We can only infer based on our observations of people who grew up in different cultures and different eras.

Igor:  We also see bias depending on how the study is conducted. For example, there are studies from Germany that asked younger and older Germans to solve a problem. If the problem was formulated in a way that was easy to understand for all ages, both groups performed the same. However, if you take the exact same problem and formulate it in a way that doesn't resonate with the daily experience of the older group, then they perform much worse. So older adults have more experience, but that's not necessarily helpful. 

Unless you are repeatedly exposed to the same type of experiences, the strategies you developed in reaction to those experiences may not be accessible, and the memories of those experiences will decay over time.

Alex: So an older person saying, "This is how we used to do things back in my day," is not a sign of wisdom, but a sign of experience?

Igor:  Yes, it's them sharing a different type of experience. It still has value though, because that older person is bringing ideas from a different culture—based on the culture they grew up in—which younger people wouldn't have considered. 

Keep in mind, though, that "old age" is a very strange term. If you look at historical narratives from hundreds of years ago about old age—and this is true not just in North America and Europe, but also China, Japan and Korea—they think of old age as people in their thirties and forties, because people didn't live as long. If you managed to make it to 40, you would've lived a long time, survived a lot, while also still being in good physical and mental condition. That's why when you see old texts saying that wisdom comes with age, you have to be careful, because that often refers to a very different age group.

A culture of intellectual humility

Alex: You mentioned earlier that the mentor-mentee relationship was one way of developing wisdom. Is there a case for intergenerational collaboration in the workplace?

Igor:  I think any type of diversity is good in the workplace, since it brings more perspectives. Young adults typically are more spontaneous, quicker, and generate lots of arguments and brainstorming ideas. However, they're not as good as older adults at trimming ideas, selecting, and integrating them together.

As I mentioned before, an older person coming in and saying, "Why aren't you doing things this way?" can be disruptive. It's especially problematic if that person is trying to push old templates that are no longer relevant. However, that can also be positive, since the younger person may have forgotten something, or taken something for granted. 

The mere fact of asking the question and starting a conversation is beneficial. Having intergenerational collaboration in that sense is really important.

Alex: What are your thoughts on seniority?

Igor:  I'm not a fan. I think it is morally important to respect the elderly, but confusing respect and appreciation with power can be dangerous and can stifle creativity. 

Also, people in positions of power may be less likely to admit their failures. That's also an obstacle to wisdom, since an important aspect of becoming wise is intellectual humility.

In the workplace, we should be looking to facilitate a culture of humility. Not in the sense of being agreeable and avoiding conflict, but rather encouraging, sharing and accepting different viewpoints. Obviously, that depends on the company, the job, the tasks, and so on. Overall though, encouraging intellectual humility can be very powerful.

Alex: What would be a preferable alternative to seniority? Perhaps a flat structure, or something more rotational?

Igor:  A rotational structure. As somebody born in the Soviet Union on the day of the October revolution, I'm very sensitive about flat structures. They don't work, because some people will always strive for power, so you need some kind of leadership. However, that leadership doesn't have to be top-down, and it doesn't have to be set in stone.

In that sense, a rotational system could be quite advantageous. Allow people from different ages and backgrounds to access important positions. It's also more fun that way, since you can also learn more and broaden your horizon.

Alex: That's interesting, because it brings to mind another big debate within the corporate world about specialization versus generalization. Is being a generalist more favorable to developing wisdom?

Igor:  It's not one or the other. One of my favorite authors from the 20th century was another Eastern European expat—the hugely influential intellectual Isaiah Berlin. He wrote a famous essay classifying previous intellectuals like Tolstoy and Shakespeare as either hedgehogs or foxes. The hedgehog was the specialist, who would see the world through the lens of a single idea. The fox was the generalist, who believed in the importance of a wide variety of experiences. So which one is better? Well, you need a bit of both, depending on the situation.

For wisdom, you also need a bit of both. You need the ability to bring matters into focus, but also to be aware of diverse perspectives.

Wisdom isn't something you are, it's something you do

Alex: Is there a downside to wisdom? Does it hamper creativity, or make people stubborn, for example?

Igor:  I don't think there's a serious downside. To be creative, you need metacognitive processes, so in that sense creativity is a part of wisdom. The ability to look at things from different perspectives and consider different viewpoints are key ingredients for creativity.

You will also be less stubborn, since another part of wisdom is the ability to cooperate, compromise, and balance things together. This means wise people are generally more agreeable, not just socially but also intellectually, since they are open to the idea that the opposite of the truth may also be true. Sometimes, this tendency may be somewhat of a downside.

One thing that can be a disadvantage is that wise people are more deliberate. They take more time to reflect on everything and wait, which can be a virtue, but can also be a problem when a spontaneous decision is necessary.

If you define wisdom as the ability to figure out which strategy best fits every situation, then by that definition there is no downside, because a wise person would figure out any downsides and adapt their strategy accordingly. However, this is not a practical definition from an empirical standpoint, as it can lead to tautological, non-falsifiable claims.

Instead, I think it's important to recognize that some aspects of metacognition or morals may be relevant at times, and sometimes the same aspects of metacognition may be totally irrelevant and other features may be relevant. Will being intellectually humble help you ride a bike or pay your taxes? Probably not. Are moral aspirations important when driving a car? Perhaps if you're on a cusp of making a life or death decision, but hopefully that doesn't happen too often.

That being said, metacognitive processes can be exhausting. If you practice a lot, you make them more automatic, but on average they take more effort than just using a rule of thumb to make your decisions. To be wise, you need to step out of your comfort zone and think carefully, which is energy intensive. That's perhaps the biggest drawback of wisdom. You have to use it wisely!

Alex: So wisdom isn't something you have, it's something that you do?

Igor:  Yes. There's a common misconception that you are either wise or unwise. That may be the case for some individuals, but they are remarkably few. My research shows that it's more of a gradation, and can vary dramatically across different situations.

We do see general tendencies. Some people are more likely than others to engage in metacognitive processes. Those who engage more may on average be wiser. But just because someone shows more wisdom on average doesn't guarantee they will be wiser in a given situation. It's probabilistic, not deterministic.

About the author: Alex is the editor in chief of Kintopia and part of the corporate branding department at Cybozu. He holds an LLM in Human Rights Law from the University of Nottingham and previously worked for the Swiss government. 

Image by Ayami Takano

Read the article:

Steullet, A. (2021, March 11). Wisdom isn't about what you think, but how you think. Kintopia. Retrieved from https://kintopia.kintone.com/articles/005943.html

Explore the Center for Practical Wisdom

REGISTER LOGIN (0)

What is Wisdom? How Truly Wise People Act—and What You Can Do to Become More Like Them

By Mike DuBose

The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of wisdom is “the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment.” When it comes to ourselves (and those around us), however, the concept of wisdom can be a bit trickier to pin down. Well-educated people are often wise, but some people who have no formal education are very wise as well. Intelligent people may be wise, but there are also plenty of very smart people who lack basic common sense, much less true wisdom! People who have gone through many different experiences may become wiser by doing so…but only if they look to find lessons within their experiences and apply them in their lives.

Is Wisdom in Decline?

True wisdom is a precious thing, and listening to the news and looking around on social media today, it’s easy to believe that wisdom is in very short supply. Some people intentionally spread lies and misinformation to further their agendas, even if what they’re saying is so blatantly wrong as to be comical, and others are happy to spread these falsehoods without taking the time to examine the statements and discern whether or not they are true (which is certainly something that a wise person would do). Indeed, Steven Pinker, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist and psychology professor at Harvard University, wrote in his book Rationality, “Today’s humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding—and also appears to be losing its mind. How can a species that developed vaccines for COVID-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news, medical quackery, and conspiracy theorizing?”

Although it is deeply troubling that so many people these days seem unconcerned with real knowledge and understanding, plenty of wise people do exist. Although these folks may not be as loud as their foolish counterparts, they are still present in our families, groups of friends, workplaces, and churches, where they can be relied upon to thoughtfully examine ideas and give good advice based on their knowledge and experience.

The Habits, Activities, and Characteristics of Truly Wise People

When we recognize wisdom in others and seek to emulate their behaviors, we can gain wisdom ourselves. But what does real wisdom look like?

Wise people look inward, and they do so honestly. Aristotle once said, “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” Wise people are reflective. They are able to recognize their own faults and limitations without becoming defensive, and they also extend this tolerance to others.

Wise people don’t shy away from making mistakes. The truly wise are the first to acknowledge when they have erred. They know that mistakes, failures, and difficulties are actually valuable opportunities from which they can draw more wisdom. They don’t dwell on the past, but they do utilize lessons learned from their past disappointments (and successes) to continuously improve themselves and their decision-making. Because they are not afraid of failure, they passionately strive to implement their visions, even when facing major obstacles.

Wise people “underpromise and overdeliver.” Because they are realistic about their own capabilities, wise people don’t overcommit themselves. They don’t make promises that they can’t keep.

Wise people don’t hold grudges. Just as they accept their own mistakes without shame, wise people accept others’ imperfections and failures. They look for the good in everyone, even those with whom they disagree, focusing on understanding and compassion rather than judgment.

Wise people seek to lift others up. Because of their ability to empathize, wise people are often first in line to assist those in need, especially by sharing their knowledge and experiences. They tend to look beyond their personal needs and desires to find compromises that are best for everyone. Although they don’t take joy in arguing, they will challenge the status quo if they feel that something is wrong.

Wise people think before they speak or act. Wise people tend to be calm and reserved. As recommended in James 1:19, wise people are “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” Wise people are able to look at arguments rationally rather than basing their opinions on emotions. They do more listening than talking, and when they speak, others tend to listen.

Wise people know that there is always more to learn. The wise are always seeking new knowledge. They push themselves outside of their comfort zones to learn, achieve, and experience more, always believing in their potential. However, they aren’t know-it-alls…no matter how intelligent, experienced, or educated they are. They know that “The only wisdom is in knowing you know nothing,” as Socrates once said!

Wise people surround themselves with those who are smarter, wiser, and more experienced than they are. The wise don’t seek to be the “big fish in the small pond;” rather, surround themselves with positive individuals who challenge them to grow. Many wise individuals also seek help from a higher power in guiding their lives, believing that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

Wise people welcome and respect thoughts and opinions different from their own. Rather than relying on friends, media outlets, and conversations that simply confirm the beliefs they already have, wise people look outside the “echo chamber.” While they may discard some opinions after careful thought and consideration, wise people are willing to entertain all fact-based, rational arguments from people with a wide variety of perspectives, regardless of political affiliation (although they avoid one-sided discussions with those who refuse to compromise). As Aristotle said, “It’s the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Wise people make choices based on facts, evidence, and experience. The wise strive to analyze all facets of a situation before coming to a timely conclusion. They base their decisions on facts rather than emotion or hearsay, and they remain open to reconsidering their stances if and when new information arises.

Wise people look to the future and plan ahead. Although they “hope for the best and plan for the worst,” wise people are strategy-driven. They craft detailed plans so that they know where they are going and how to get there.

Wise people value teamwork. Wise people recognize and appreciate the knowledge and talents of other individuals. They know that they are more likely to succeed when working as part of a talented, passionate team toward common goals.

Wise people live within their means. Plato noted, “The greatest wealth is to live content with little.” Wise people avoid debt, and they value relationships, spirituality, knowledge, and personal growth over worldly success and expensive things.

The Bottom Line : Real wisdom is a rare and precious treasure, but it is one within our reach. If we look at the habits and characteristics of wise people with the desire of learning from them and improving ourselves, we can all become wiser! As Plato once said, “Excellence is not a gift, but a skill that takes practice.”

Mike DuBose has been a staff member with USC’s graduate school since 1986, when he began his family of companies, and is the author of The Art of Building a Great Business. Visit his nonprofit website www.mikedubose.com for free copies of his three books and additional published business, travel, and personal articles, as well as health columns written with Surb Guram, MD. Contact Mike at [email protected] .

SOCIAL LINKS

Search by topic

Architecture Banking and Finance Commercial Real Estate Construction Education Government Health Care Law Non Profit Residential Real Estate The Arts

SEARCH BY TOPIC

Featured Jobs

Nursing – LPN

Website Manager & Graphic Designer

Part-time Ministry Assistant

Part-Time Director of Music at First Presbyterian Church, Clinton

House Manager

Architecture Banking and Finance Commercial Real Estate Construction Economic Development Education Government Health & Wellness Laurens County Sports Law Local Industry Non Profit Residential Real Estate Retail The Arts

Advertisement

Are you a wise person you need these 7 qualities, research says.

What actually is " wisdom "? By definition, it's described as the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment—and according to research published in the journal International Psychogeriatrics, there's a simple seven-item scale that can actually determine how wise someone is. Here's what they found.

What really makes up "wisdom"?

To conduct this study, researchers wanted to build off of an existing scale for calculating wisdom, which included 28 questions. In this study, however, they shortened the list to seven questions, aptly based on the seven components that make up wisdom. Those components being:

• Self-reflection
• Pro-social behaviors (i.e., empathy and compassion )
• Emotional regulation
• Acceptance of diverse perspectives
• Decisiveness
• Social advising (i.e., giving helpful advice)
• Spirituality

Researchers surveyed just over 2,000 participants to find out how closely they related to the seven components. For example, participants would rate the statement "I remain calm under pressure" on a scale from 1 to 5.

As senior author of the study Dilip V. Jeste, M.D., explains in a news release, "We selected the right type of questions to get important information that not only contributes to the advancement of science but also supports our previous data that wisdom correlates with health and longevity." 

What the research shows

The seven components of wisdom—and the subsequent questions the participants were asked—have proved to be an accurate and reliable measure of wisdom. And sure, being considered wise can be a feather in your cap, but it's more than just a novel personality trait.

Wisdom has been found to have a strong correlation with things like happiness, resilience, and mental well-being. What's more? Jeste once told mbg that wisdom can be a powerful tool for combating loneliness , which has serious impacts on overall health.

And the good news? Those aforementioned seven components of wisdom can absolutely be cultivated, offering virtually everyone an accessible way to positively affect their well-being.

The takeaway

According to Jeste, this study shows "There are evidence-based interventions to increase levels of specific components of wisdom, which would help reduce loneliness and promote overall well-being." So, even if you don't feel like the wisest person , you can approach it as a work in progress and cultivate those qualities.

The bottom line is this: Wisdom is associated with well-being, and understanding the factors that comprise it offers a simple intervention to becoming more wise.

Enjoy some of our favorite clips from classes

What Is Meditation?

Mindfulness/Spirituality | Light Watkins

Box Breathing

Mindfulness/Spirituality | Gwen Dittmar

What Breathwork Can Address

The 8 limbs of yoga - what is asana.

Yoga | Caley Alyssa

Two Standing Postures to Open Up Tight Hips

How plants can optimize athletic performance.

Nutrition | Rich Roll

What to Eat Before a Workout

How ayurveda helps us navigate modern life.

Nutrition | Sahara Rose

Messages About Love & Relationships

Love & Relationships | Esther Perel

Love Languages

More on this topic.

Your Last Minute Halloween Costume, Based On Your Zodiac Sign

Sarah Regan

8 Mental Traps That Keep You In A Toxic Family Dynamic, From A Psychologist

Perpetua Neo, DClinPsy

Doing *This* Before You Meditate Could Help You Relax Even More

Hannah Frye

How Your Zodiac Sign Can Connect With Your Intuition This Spooky Szn

3 Daily Habits That Slow Down The Formation Of Wrinkles Naturally

This Can Help Prevent Cognitive & Neurological Conditions, Experts Says

Popular Stories

What makes a person seem wise? Global study finds that cultures do differ – but not as much as you’d think

Research Associate, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo

Professor in Philosophy and Director of the African Centre for Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, University of Johannesburg

Disclosure statement

Veli Mitova receives funding from the John Templeton Foundation and the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences.

Maksim Rudnev does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Waterloo provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of Waterloo provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

University of Johannesburg provides support as an endorsing partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

We all admire wise people, don’t we? Whether it’s a thoughtful teacher, a compassionate doctor, or an elder in the community, we recognise wisdom when we see it. But have you ever thought about how people in different cultures perceive wisdom? Does someone in Morocco view a wise person in the same way as someone in Ecuador? Our recent study explored how people across cultures think of wisdom.

This large-scale project required a joint effort of 34 researchers across fields of philosophy, psychology, anthropology, social science and psychometrics – and from all over the world, connected in a research consortium called The Geography of Philosophy .

What we found was somewhat surprising. Wisdom may appear to be shaped by cultural differences, but the core aspects of what makes someone wise are largely the same across cultures. From urban college students in Japan to villagers in South Africa, participants associated wisdom with two key characteristics: reflective orientation and socio-emotional awareness. We explain what that means below.

Contrary to widespread stereotypes, people recognise wisdom in a similar way across east and west, south and north. Despite the divisions of the world, we see wisdom in the same individuals and associate it with similar traits. Are we indeed more alike than we are different, when it comes to how we perceive wisdom? And what characterises wise people?

These are the characteristics of wise people

There are two key characteristics. Reflective orientation is about people who think before acting, carefully consider different perspectives, and use logic and past experiences to guide their decisions. They’re the type of person who keeps their cool in difficult situations, taking time to weigh all the options before making a move.

The second is socio-emotional awareness. Wise people are good at understanding and caring about the thoughts and feelings of others. They pay attention to emotions and consider different views on the situation. Such an individual might be skilled at mediating conflicts by understanding each party’s point of view, or be adept at providing emotional support during difficult times.

Together, these two dimensions combine to form the global image of wisdom. The study suggests that the wisest people are those who balance both, showing strong abilities in reasoning while also being emotionally and socially aware.

A highly reflective person who is suppressing their own emotions but doesn’t notice the social context of the problem wouldn’t be called wise. Likewise, someone who is entirely driven by emotion and the social environment but fails to make logical connections wouldn’t be called wise either. Real wisdom, according to our study, is about finding a balance between thoughtful reasoning, social understanding, and emotional awareness.

Cultures do differ, but not as much as you might think

To uncover these dimensions, we employed a method sometimes called experimental philosophy . Participants across 16 different cultures in 12 countries on five continents compared a set of targets to each other. For example, one of the questions asked participants to compare whether a doctor or a religious person was more likely to think logically when making a hard life decision with no right or wrong answers. Our participants also rated themselves. Then we asked how wise each of these persons were.

When we started this project, we expected to find big differences between cultures. Previous research suggested that people in “the west” use and value analytical thinking, which tends to dismiss social and emotional parts of the situation. In contrast, individuals in “the east” emphasise holistic thinking, that is, all-encompassing views of complex situations.

But that’s not what we found. While there were some small differences – people in South Africa, for example, placed more importance on nature and divinity when thinking about socio-emotional awareness – the overall picture was strikingly similar. Across the globe, people rated individuals who were both reflective and socially and emotionally aware as the wisest. For instance, they named a doctor and a 75-year-old person as the wisest, and at the same time the highest on both dimensions.

What was particularly fascinating was that people tended to rate themselves differently from how they rated others. Most people saw themselves as less reflective but more socially and emotionally aware than the “wise” figures they were asked to rate. In other words, people were ready to admit a moderate level of their own intellectual capabilities, but they were quite confident in their ability to understand and care for others.

Why this matters

This research defies stereotypes of a cold analytical ideal of “the west” and a social-minded and emotionally driven image of “the east” and “the south”. The idea that wisdom is purely intellectual, or conversely, purely social or divine, is too simplistic. It also highlights that wisdom manifests in a balance of traits traditionally attributed to different cultures.

In a time when global cooperation is more important than ever, recognising our shared appreciation for certain qualities can help bridge cultural divides.

The study opens up new avenues for research. Could these dimensions of wisdom help us understand how to solve global problems? Are people more likely to trust leaders who show both reflective thinking and socio-emotional awareness? And how do these qualities affect the way we handle personal relationships, difficult decisions, or conflicts?

One thing is clear: wisdom is something we all value, no matter where we come from. By understanding it better, we can not only become wiser ourselves but also learn to appreciate wisdom in others, wherever they may be.

• Multiculturalism
• Emotional skills
• Social life
• international cooperation

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Project Manager – Contraceptive Development

Editorial Internship

Integrated Management of Invasive Pampas Grass for Enhanced Land Rehabilitation