The Fascination of Wisdom Its Nature, Ontogeny, and Function Paul B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE The Fascination of Wisdom Its Nature, Ontogeny, and Function Paul B. Baltes1 and Jacqui Smith1,2 1Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany, and 2Department of Psychology and Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan ABSTRACT—Wisdom has intrigued both scholars and lay- (1988), for example, summarizes the importance of wisdom, persons since antiquity. On the one hand, its seemingly ‘‘Wisdom is like love, intelligence, and decency in that it is a ethereal yet obvious qualities are timeless and universal. good thing to have and the more that we have of it the better we On the other hand, these same qualities are evolving and are. The opposite of wisdom is foolishness, universally recog- responsive to historical and cultural change. Novel soci- nized to be a defect’’ (p. 145). etal and personal dilemmas emerge over time, and the Whereas philosophers provide eloquent and insightful com- ways and means to deal with recurring dilemmas are re- mentaries about the nature, function, and ontogeny of wisdom, visited and updated with prudence. Building on philo- they rarely devise ways to test their proposals empirically. This sophical analyses of the role of theoretical and practical is the contribution of psychological scientists. We begin this wisdom in good conduct and judgment about life matters, article with a brief and selective overview of philosophical psychologists have begun to apply scientific methods to perspectives on wisdom and how these are reflected in con- questions about the nature, function, and ontogeny of temporary psychological research (see Baltes, 2004; Birren & wisdom. We outline these research directions and focus on Svensson, 2005; Brugman, 2006; Collins, 1962; Sternberg, the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, which was one of the first 1990; Sternberg & Jordan, 2005; Thiele, 2006, for extensive attempts to bring wisdom into the laboratory. Future re- reviews). For illustrative purposes, we then focus on the po- search on wisdom would profit from interdisciplinary tential and limits of one attempt to investigate wisdom from a collaboration and creative application of new methods psychological perspective, namely the approach pursued by the drawn from developmental, social, and cognitive psy- Berlin Wisdom Project. This project was established by Paul B. chology. Baltes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin in the 1980s (e.g., Baltes, 2004; Baltes, Dittmann-Kohli, & Dixon, 1984; Smith & Baltes, 1989) and was revised over the Throughout the centuries, wisdom has been exalted in many ensuing years with successive cohorts of collaborators (e.g., cultures as a desired resource representing the ideal integration Baltes & Freund, 2003; Baltes, Glu¨ck, & Kunzmann, 2002; of knowledge and action, mind and virtue (Assmann, 1994; Baltes & Smith, 1990; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Kunzmann & Baltes, 2004; Clayton & Birren, 1980). In antiquity, wisdom was Baltes, 2005; Scheibe, Kunzmann, & Baltes, 2007). Finally, we reserved for divine beings. It was worshipped but was beyond the turn to the future and suggest some research directions that, in reach of mortals, until it was secularized by the Greek philos- our opinion, might further contribute to understanding this ophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Since that time, scholars in elusive but fundamentally important concept. western cultures have contemplated the nature of the wisdom of human beings and its role in the conduct of life and the orga- nization of society. This discourse continues in contemporary PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WISDOM studies of ethics, politics, science, morality, and the meaning of The substantial foundations for contemporary reflection about life. Wisdom is associated with good judgment and actions that the nature and function of wisdom were laid by the ancient contribute to living well (e.g., Kekes, 1983, 1988; Maxwell, Greek philosophers. Wisdom was established as an intellectual 2004; Nozick, 1989; Nussbaum, 2001; Thiele, 2006). Kekes virtue and as a means for individuals and communities to live well despite the uncertainties of human life (Kekes, 1988; Nu- ssbaum, 2001; Taylor, 1955). Since then, there has been con- Address correspondence to Jacqui Smith, Institute for Social Re- search, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, siderable debate about the essential components of wisdom. For MI 48106-1248; e-mail: [email protected]. example, does it require not only extensive practical knowledge Copyright r 2008 Association for Psychological Science Volume 3—Number 1 Page 116 Paul B. Baltes and Jacqui Smith about ways of acting to deal with life problems, but also tech- Given this background, it is legitimate to ask what a psy- nical and theoretical (scientific) knowledge about life? To be- chological perspective on the study of wisdom might contribute. come wise, do individuals need to be of good (moral) character One agenda of psychological science is to study general pro- and live a good life? cesses of the mind and behavior using standardized empirical Aristotle was one of the first to argue for the primacy of and experimental methods. In this regard, psychologists devise practical over theoretical knowledge in decisions about the methods to investigate implicit beliefs about wisdom, good appropriate and ethical ways to act in life matters (e.g., Taylor, judgment, and prudent behavior in secondary data (e.g., texts, 1955). He believed that practical wisdom enabled an individual speeches, or the life stories of individuals who are considered to resourcefully adapt theoretical and scientific understanding wise) or in vivo in the field or the laboratory. Another psycho- to concrete situations and dilemmas (e.g., Kekes, 1983; Nu- logical agenda is to ask questions about individual differences ssbaum, 2001; Taylor, 1955). Practical wisdom in Aristotle’s and development: How does wisdom develop over the lifespan, model presupposed that an individual was also morally virtuous. and why are some individuals wiser than others? Practical wisdom is used to set priorities for action, and this Psychological research on wisdom is relatively young and, selection process is guided by intuition and values and tempered given the philosophical roots of the topic, it is understandably by emotion. characterized by approaches that reflect the different interests of Having linked knowledge, action, and judgment to wisdom, social-psychological, personality, cognitive, and lifespan re- ancient philosophers also considered how wisdom could be searchers. Nevertheless, several theories and methods have cultivated, especially in public officials responsible for making been established, and these are embedded in philosophical decisions about the common good and welfare of the citizens tradition (see Birren & Svensson, 2005). Indeed, Brugman under their leadership (Baltes, 2004; Taylor, 1955). Aristotle, (2006) concluded in his review of psychological perspectives on for example, insisted that only individuals with good character wisdom that ‘‘almost all philosophical notions about wisdom could acquire excellence in practical wisdom and that both good have been incorporated in psychological theories’’ (p. 447). character and practical wisdom could be trained (Taylor, 1955). Initial research by Clayton and Birren (1980) examined the He advocated long-term affiliation with a mentor who was known beliefs and implicit theories that people hold about the nature of to have exemplary character and to exhibit good judgment and wisdom and the characteristics of people who are considered action. wise. They determined that wisdom is associated with cognitive, Subsequent philosophers (e.g., Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and affective, and reflective characteristics and that wise persons are Gadamer) pointed to the plurality of wisdom as it is constructed knowledgeable, mature, tolerant, emphatic, experienced, and by humans for humans and placed less emphasis on the im- intuitive. Subsequent studies have established that socially portance of a moral character (Thiele, 2006). The idea that there shared concepts of wisdom differ from concepts of other is but one ‘‘good life’’ to which all humans aspire is acknowl- desirable psychological characteristics, such as intelligence, edged as utopian. Instead, there are many versions of a good life, creativity, or a mature personality profile (e.g., Holliday & which means that there are also many ways to achieve excel- Chandler, 1986; Sternberg, 1985). Researchers have also asked lence within the constraints of socially-accepted values and whether implicit beliefs about wisdom differ across cultural ethics. Some have argued that the hallmark of wisdom is groups, organize judgment and behavior in social life (e.g., knowing how, where, and when to take risks and to deal with professional settings, mentoring), or regulate personal growth. In uncertainty (e.g., Brugman, 2006; Nussbaum, 2001). There is addition, contemporary work includes methods developed to general agreement, however, that the acquisition of wisdom re- assess the personality and affective characteristics attributed quires time and effort and that it involves some combination of to wise persons (e.g., Ardelt, 2004), as well as those attributed to education, practice, apprenticeship, personal experience, and wisdom-related knowledge and behavior. All of these ap- deliberate reflection about life matters. proaches are described in chapters in Sternberg (1990) and Sternberg and Jordan (2005). We focus