August 2018
Ankita Sharma
In recent years, the interest in the concept of wisdom has increased tremendously. As explained in the article by Sharma and Dewangan (2017), the most popular models can be clubbed into two categories: 1. Models explaining dimensions on which wise behavior is expressed, and 2. Models are reflecting factors responsible for or factors fostering ontogenesis of wisdom.
There are several different definitions of wisdom, however; the definitions given by Jeste et al. (2010), Baltes and Staudinger (2000) and Yang (2008) is personally more convincing. Thus the operational definition for my work is conceptualized by combining their definition as, "Wisdom is a form of advanced development and integration of cognition, emotion, and self, is driven by life experiences and results in ways and means of understanding, planning and managing good life for self and others."
Despite several definitions of wisdom, there is a substantial agreement for the essential elements or components of wisdom (for details see, Sharma & Dewangan, 2018). However, the long list of qualities does not help in bringing wisdom to the area of intervention and implications. Glück (2015) suggested that considering the paramount value of wisdom, the psychological science should bring the concept to the area of intervention. Therefore, a framework is conceptualized and explained below to combine factors essential for ontogenesis of wisdom.
ROOT (N) model: Many explicit theories of wisdom connect different cognitive, personality and personality-intelligence interface with wisdom; also most of the theories describe features of wisdom but do not comment on how one become wise through the development of these features (Vervaeke & Ferraro, 2013). The works of Glück and Bluck, (2013), and Webster (2003) is followed in the development of ROOT(N) model to deduce the fundamental processes and their interrelations.
1. Self-Regulation:
A distinction is made between personal and general wisdom in the literature (Staudinger & Glück, 2011). Personal wisdom is associated with the wise handling of one's life problems. This means that an individual can figure out different goals, chose a goal and align them with the desired future outcome. This could be done through self-regulation only. The role of perception and reflective thinking is included as an essential component in the definition; it is also a prominent feature in many wisdom theories (Staudinger & Glück, 2011). Therefore, self-regulation is possibly a higher order cognitive function which integrates different cognitive components of wisdom.
2. Thinking:
Reflective thinking has been described as one of the significant components of wisdom by an expert panel of wisdom researchers (Jeste et al., 2010) and has been part of self-assessment of wisdom scales (Ardelt, 2003; Webster, 2003). Sternberg (2001) suggested that wisdom is related to analytical, creative and insightful thinking (same as reflective thinking).
3. Optimism and Openness to experience: Role of life experience in development of wisdom have been well discussed (Ardelt, 2005; Glück & Bluck, 2013, Staudinger & Glück, 2011), but individual differs in their reflection and learning from their life experiences. Optimistic attitude towards life has a significant impact on one’s happiness (see overview by Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). An individual’s awareness of the existence of different perspectives, without being judgmental of right-wrong or good-bad, is called openness. Openness has consistently been found as one of the characteristics and reliable predictor of wise quality (Glück, 2015).
4. Value: Value system may differ on account of different ethnocultural context, but still, specific values can be generalized to all human being (such as fairness, sincerity, humility, etc.) and have been perceived as common wisdom characteristics in different ethnocultural contexts (Sharma & Dewangan, 2018). An end (i.e., happiness/wellbeing) can be achieved by any hook or crook way, but the wise character is only possible when it is achieved by right means (i.e., values). ‘Noble' person as defined by Webster Dictionary of ‘having, showing, or coming from personal qualities that people admire (such as honesty, generosity, courage, etc.)' and considered in our model as a personal characteristic with the potential of developing wisdom by virtue of having means to achieve balance in different interests.
The working assumption is that (1) the ROOT(N) provides an essential components to plant a seed of wisdom in an individual, which will eventually convert into a robust rooted wise behavior; (2) all the components included in the ROOT(N) are studied extensively in intervention studies, the requirement is to develop a program to combine different modules and verify it idiosyncratically and nomothetically. I assume, developing ROOT (R-self regulation, O-optimism, O-openness, T-reflective, creative & analytic thinking) mediated through incorporating nobility will lead to positive changes, and by this, I assume that the seeds of wisdom will also be sown.
References:
Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical Assessment of a Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale, 25(3). doi:10.1177/0164027503251764
Ardelt, M. (2005). How wise people cope with crises and obstacles in life. ReVision, 28, 7‐19.
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122.
Glück, J. (2015). Wisdom, Psychology of. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 590–597). doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25042-3
Glück, J., & Bluck, S. (2013). The MORE life experience model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari, N. Weststrate (Eds.). The scientific study of personal wisdom (pp. 75-97). Netherlands: Springer.
Jeste, D. V., Ardelt, M., Blazer, D., Kraemer, H. C., Vaillant, G., & Meeks, T. W. (2010). Expert Consensus on Characteristics of Wisdom: A Delphi Method Study. The Gerontologist, 50(5), 668–680. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq022
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K.M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing Happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131.
Sharma, A. & Dewangan, R.L. (2017). Can wisdom be fostered: Time to test the model of wisdom? Cogent Psychology, 4: 1381456.
Sharma, A., & Dewangan, R.L. (2018). Indian Socio-cultural Conception of Wisdom: Does it follow universal understanding? Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 5-19.
Staudinger, U. M., & Glück, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research: Commonalities and differences in a growing field. Annual review of psychology, 62, 215-241. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131659
Vervaeke, J., & Ferraro, L. (2013). Relevance, meaning and the cognitive science of wisdom. In M. Ferrari and N.M. Weststrate (eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom (pp. 1-51). New York: Springer.
Webster, J. D. (2003). An exploratory analysis of a self-assessed wisdom scale. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 13-22.
Yang, S. (2008). A process view of wisdom. Journal of Adult Development, 15(2), 62–75. doi:10.1007/s10804-008-9037-8