For example, Erich von Manstein unexpectedly ordered his armored forces across the Maginot line, and invaded France from the north, through Luxembourg and the Belgian Ardennes. Likewise, since wise behaviour integrates virtue and wit (Wang & Zheng, 2015), an action lacking a virtuous motive cannot be called wise, even if it is talented and very successful. For example, in Kohlberg’s theory, moral behaviour integrates moral judgment (moral motivation) and altruistic behaviour-thus, if an action is not virtuously motivated, it is not moral, even if the result is altruistic (Wang et al., 2019, pp. For example, when studying moral behaviour-which, like wise behaviour, is greatly influenced by the situation-experts in moral psychology, moral education, ethicists and philosophers all believe that there must be some moral quality behind moral behaviour that it is not completely situationally determined. In fact, historically, when psychologists encountered analogous topics, they usually sought some role for individual psychological attributes. However, different from Grossmann, we believe that to completely deny the possibility of personal wisdom seems to make wisdom the object of sociology or law, not psychology. And we also believe that situations are an important external moderator of wise behaviour. For example, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein show great wisdom in their careers, but not in their personal lives (Sternberg, 2019a), which proving that most people’s wisdom is domain specific, with very few possessing general wisdom, let alone universal wisdom in all times and places. We agree with Grossmann that there is no pan-situational wisdom factor and firmly believe that human wisdom manifests in particular domains. ![]() But, what specifically characterizes wisdom? Is it a special way of thinking (as for Piaget and Neo-Piagetians), a certain type of acquired knowledge (as in the Berlin’s wisdom paradigm), a combination of ability and personality (as for Ardelt), or some other individual psychological attribute? This question needs further study.Īccording to Grossmann ( 2017a), wisdom is a property characteristic of individuals in situations rather than a personal excellence-whether or not a person is wise depends on the situation, and there is no general wisdom factor ( w factor) analogous to Spearman’s g (Sternberg, 2019a). It is appropriate to define wisdom as a personal psychological excellence. Sternberg ( 2019a) groups various definitions of wisdom into four types: (a) a personal psychological excellence, (b) a property of the situation, (c) an interaction between person and situation, and (d) a property of action. ![]() Finally, we highlight five issues of concern for the future science of wisdom. Three arguments were subsequently clarified. In this paper, we first examine existing definitions of wisdom, and then propose a new integrative definition and two classifications of wisdom. Likewise, although scholars have classified wisdom in various ways, they have hardly considered the relationship between wisdom and professional knowledge. This not only affects the replicability of wisdom research, but also makes psychological discussion of wisdom increasingly difficult, ultimately affecting the potential development of a science of wisdom. As a result, although widely discussed, we find a wide variety of scientific meanings of wisdom with different dimensions on self-report measures designed to measure wisdom. However, owing to its complex meaning, cultural embeddedness and variability-not to mention different academic disciplines, research perspectives, and researcher preferences-we have yet to reach a scientific consensus about wisdom. ![]() We then discuss three pressing questions about wisdom, and consider five issues important to the future of wisdom research in psychology. At the same time, we propose that wisdom classification should integrate the views of Sternberg and Wang and be divided into three types: domain-specific wisdom, domain-general wisdom, and omniscient/ overall wisdom. Wisdom can be further divided into “humane wisdom” and “natural wisdom” according to the types of capability required. Thus, we propose a two-dimensional theory of wisdom that integrates virtue and wit. (b) As a psychological trait, wisdom refers to a global psychological quality that engages intellectual ability, prior knowledge and experience in a way that integrates virtue and wit, and is acquired through life experience and continued practice. (a) As action or behaviour, wisdom refers to well-motivated actors achieving an altruistic outcome by creatively and successfully solving problems. Narrowing the debate about the meaning of wisdom requires two different understandings of wisdom.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |