Models of Wisdom from Leading Wisdom Experts

In the last 40 years, psychologists and other researchers have devoted considerable effort to developing different models of wisdom to illustrate its components and how it works. The following are a number of models of wisdom often cited in the evolving wisdom literature, as well as a summary at the end.

The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Model)

One model of wisdom which has become in effect the “standard model” against which other models are compared was developed in the 1990s by Paul Baltes and Ursula Staudinger at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, Germany, and is thus called “The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm” (see longer summary here).

Baltes and Staudinger define wisdom as “an expertise in the conduct and meaning of life.” Their approach draws on the history of wisdom literature over the centuries and combines it with modern-day research as well as their own thinking.  It is important to note, however, that their Wisdom Paradigm is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains what wisdom is in detail, but it does not explain how to “get wisdom” and actually make wise decisions in real life.

Bates and Staudinger illustrated the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm with this diagram—which is somewhat complicated, so we are going to attempt to explain it below.

In the center is our Life Context. This is where we are now. We can experience and organize our life through different processes such as Life Planning, Life Management and Life Review, depending where we are over our lifespan and circumstances. 

On the left side are the different factors related to each individual person who is engaging in one of these “organizing processes,” in other words, “where the wisdom comes from.” These personal factors fall into three categories:

• General Person Factors such as how the person thinks (cognitive mechanics and style), mental health, creativity, openness to experience and ego strength
• Expertise-Specific Factors such as experience in life matters, organized learning (tutelage or expertise in a field such as chemistry or psychology), mentorship in dealing with life problems, how we have learned to solve problems through practical experience or trial and error (cognitive heuristics), and our motivations such as striving for excellence or passing on knowledge to the next generation (generativity).
• Facilitative Experiential Contexts refers to experiences that might facilitate someone’s acquiring wisdom, such as age, education, parenthood, mentoring other people, profession or work experience, and the historical period in which we live.

On the right side of the diagram are different examples of “how wisdom is used” through problem-solving of various kinds. These examples are not mutually exclusive but overlap to some degree, including:

• General Framework—wisdom as excellence in mind and virtue (behavior showing high moral standards)
• Psychological Framework—wisdom as excellence in the conduct and meaning of life
• Berlin Wisdom Paradigm—wisdom as expert knowledge and judgment in the fundamental pragmatics (practical aspects) of life
• Basic Criteria—including factual knowledge and procedural (how-to) knowledge
• Meta Criteria—combining these different frameworks and other problem-solving approaches so that we consider Lifespan Contextualism (the context of where the person is in their lifespan), Value Relativism (realizing that different people have different values), and Recognition/Management of Uncertainty (life is filled with uncertainty and we have to deal with it). 

The authors also note, “Equally central to wisdom-related knowledge and judgment are the ‘spiritual’ incomprehensibilities of life, such as the mind-body dynamics or the existence of a divine being.” That is not part of the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm.

A 3-Dimensional Model of Wisdom

Dr. Monika Ardelt, professor of sociology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, critiques the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm as too much focused on cognition or thinking and not sufficiently focused on affect or feeling. She argues in this article that “the definition, operationalization, and measurement of wisdom should not be reduced to expertise, and that the term wisdom should be reserved for wise persons rather than expert knowledge.” While Baltes and his associates “primarily assess expert or intellectual knowledge in the wisdom domain ‘fundamental pragmatics of life,’” she believes the focus should be in individuals and “how wise people are.” So she has developed a model of wisdom “that defines, operationalizes, and measures wisdom as an integration of cognitive, reflective, and affective personality characteristics.” This has become known popularly as the “3-dimensional model of wisdom”:

Dr. Ardelt explains: “As summarized in table 1 [above], the cognitive dimension of wisdom refers to the desire to know the truth and attain a deeper understanding of life, particularly with regard to intrapersonal and interpersonal matters. That includes knowledge and acceptance of the positive and negative aspects of human nature, of the inherent limits of knowledge, and of life’s unpredictability and uncertainties. 

“However, to achieve a deeper and undistorted comprehension of reality one first has to overcome one’s subjectivity and projections through the practice of (self-)reflection. The reflective component of wisdom represents self-examination, self-awareness, self-insight and the ability to look at phenomena and events from different perspectives. Through those practices one is likely to overcome gradually one’s subjectivity and projections, which will make it possible to perceive and accept the reality of the present moment and to gain a better understanding of oneself and others. Only after the transcendence of one’s subjectivity and projections is a deeper understanding of life possible….

“Finally, the affective component consists of a person’s sympathetic and compassionate love for others. The transcendence of one’s subjectivity and projections through (self-)reflection is likely to reduce one’s self-centeredness. This, in turn, will permit deeper insights into one’s own and others’ motives and behavior, which enable a wise person to interact with people in a more constructive, sympathetic, and compassionate way….

“Defined in this way, wisdom is [an] ideal type… that might rarely exist in reality. However, if wisdom is regarded as a continuum that ranges from very low to very high wisdom, it becomes possible to assess how close people come to this ideal state.

The Balance Theory Model of Wisdom

The balance theory, developed by Cornell University professor Robert Sternberg, defines wisdom as “the use of one’s intelligence, creativity,  common sense, and knowledge and as mediated by positive ethical values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance among (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests, over the (a) short and (b) long terms to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments.”

“First,” Sternberg writes on his website,^⁠ “wise decisions do not just require intelligence and explicit knowledge, they typically draw on tacit, or implicit, knowledge gained through experience as well….

“Second, the definition draws heavily on the idea of balance: the balance among multiple interests, immediate and lasting consequences, and environmental responses. Balance needs to exist, not only for intrapersonal interests, but also for interpersonal and extrapersonal interests, as well as among the environmental responses. “What are these different interests and responses? 

• “Intrapersonal interests affect only the individual. They have to do with one’s own sense of identity and may include such things as the desire for self-actualization, popularity, prestige, power, prosperity, or pleasure. 
• “Interpersonal interests involve other people. They relate not only to one’s sense of self but also to desirable relationships with others. 
• “Extrapersonal interests are those that affect a wider organization, community, country, or environment. In addition to multiple interests, the consequences of each decision are assessed in order to balance short- and long-term objectives.

“Third, the balance in the balance theory of wisdom does not mean that each interest, consequence, or response is weighted equally. The relative ‘weightings’ are determined by the extent to which a particular alternative contributes to the achievement of a common good.  Obviously, there is no obvious nor consensually accepted definition of ‘common good.’  A large part of wisdom is in finding a truly common good and in persuading others of its suitability.

“Although currently, our societies tend to emphasize analytical intelligence in their assessments of individuals in school, college, and beyond, one could argue that assessments of wisdom would be more valuable.  When citizens and leaders fail in the pursuit of their duties, it is more likely to be for lack of wisdom than for lack of analytical intelligence.  In particular, failed citizens and leaders are likely to be foolish—to show unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, false omniscience, false omnipotence, false invulnerability, and ethical disengagement in their thinking and decision making.  In other words, they fail not for a lack of conventional intelligence, but rather for a lack of wisdom.”

This is certainly the case among many leaders today, in the U.S. and around the world.

Keke’s Model Of Wisdom As A Character Trait Connected With Self-Direction

Professor John Kekes of the State University of New York at Albany wrote an article entitled “Wisdom” for the American Philosophical Quarterly (July, 1983) that has often been cited by other authors and researchers as worthy of consideration.

“Wisdom is a character-trait intimately connected with self-direction,” he wrote. “The more wisdom a person has, the more likely it is that he will succeed in living a good life….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.”

What kind of knowledge is useful here? Kekes writes, “The beginning of the answer is that the knowledge involved in wisdom concerns means to good ends…. The knowledge of means is relatively simple. It comes to knowing what actions to perform, provided one knows his aims to be good. The complicated matter is knowledge of good ends. What kind of knowledge is this?

“It is a kind of interpretive knowledge. In descriptive knowledge one knows facts; in interpretive knowledge one knows the significance of the descriptively known facts. To know that a house burned down because faulty wiring caused a short-circuit and the resulting sparks ignited the dry wood ceiling, is to have descriptive knowledge. To know that one should have realized the danger, taken preventive measures, had not done so, and therefore, he was negligent, is to have interpretive knowledge.” 

We might say that interpretive knowledge gives meaning and context to facts.

After establishing the importance of good judgment in wisdom, Kekes then asks, “What is good judgment?” He takes the somewhat controversial view that “wisdom is corrective, it is exercised only when correction is needed, and that happens when things do not go smoothly. The context, therefore, in which the sign of wisdom, good judgment, is to be sought is where a man must make decisions about hard cases….

“Hard cases occur when a decision is called for and it is unclear what ideals should guide one. The unclarity is not due to the absence of ideals, but to jurisdictional conflict among them. One does not know which ideal has provenance over the case, because it can reasonably be regarded as falling under several. It is in such cases that good judgment is needed and its possession shows.”

He then gives a lengthy example of using good judgment in hard cases by drawing on the relationship between the noted mentally-troubled author Virginia Woolf and her husband, politically oriented Leonard Woolf. Kekes says, “He was a wise man and showed good judgment.” You will need to read Kekes’ original article for all the detail. This tumultuous relationship was also portrayed in the highly rated movie, “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” starring Elizabeth Taylor.

Kekes anticipates his critics by answering, “Is Wisdom Only Negative?” He believes that, “Human flourishing consists in developing human potentialities, and these are the virtues. Vices are produced by interference with this natural process. If a person has developed the virtues and avoided the vices, we can give a complete morally relevant description of him…. Plato’s philosopher king, Aristotle’s contemplative life, the Christian imitation of Christ, Spinoza’s wise man in complete control of his passions, and Kant’s man of duty … were all take to be examples … of the good life.  The life of a virtuous man reflects this pattern, and that is all that needs to be said about him morally.”

In other words if someone possesses strong virtues, that does not need to be considered wisdom, in Kekes model of wisdom, but rather a different category or quality of human behavior. 

In a concluding section often quoted by other wisdom researchers, Kekes stated, “Wisdom cannot be taught. A fool can learn to say all the things a wise man says, and to say them on the same occasions. The difference between them is that the wise man is prompted to say what he does, because he recognizes the significance of human limitations and possibilities, because he is guided in his actions by their significance, and because he is able to exercise good judgment in hard cases, while the fool is mouthing cliches. It takes time to acquire wisdom and person must to it himself….

“Growth in wisdom and self-direction go hand in hand. They are tasks for a lifetime, hence the connection between wisdom and old age. One can be old and foolish, but a wise man is likely to be old, simply because such growth takes time.”

The MORE Life Experience Model of Wisdom

Professors Judith Gluck of the Psychology University of Klagenfurt, Austria, and Susan Bluck of the University of Florida summarized their ideas about wisdom in a paper entitled “The MORE Life Experience Model: A Theory of the Development of Personal Wisdom” in 2014.

They “argue that four resources are particularly important for the development of wisdom through life experiences. People who have a strong sense of mastery, high levels of openness, a reflective attitude, and emotion regulation skills combined with empathy, are more likely to:

“(a) encounter experiences that can foster wisdom across their lives,

“(b) deal with life challenges in a manner that promotes wisdom, and

“(c) reflect on and integrate such experiences into their life story in a way that allows them to grow and learn from past experience over time.”

Here is an explanation of the four resources whose key words start with M-O-R-E, based on their extensive research:

1. Mastery—“We define mastery as wise individuals’ belief that they they are able to deal with life’s challenges, whatever they may be…. They are perfectly aware of the uncontrollability of may of life’s events, but do not feel helpless or victimized by the knowledge that some things cannot be predicted or controlled.” 
2. Openness—“Wise individuals are aware of the fact that there are multiple perspectives on every phenomenon, and they are interested in learning from new perspectives and from other people. Therefore, they are less judgmental and influenced by prejudice in how they perceive others… and able to accept that others’ goals and values can differ from their own.”
3. Reflective Attitude—“…We define reflectivity as the willingness to look at life issues in a complex way, rather than to simplify them. Wise individuals reflect deeply on experiences, striving to see the ‘big picture,’ identify larger themes, developmental links over time, and relations between issues.”
4. Emotion Regulation/Empathy—“Wisdom entails not only the ability to deal with others’ feelings effectively, but also to reach out to others through empathetic concern…., that is, to care about others’ emotions and regulate towards the prosocial motivation to improve the lives of others…. Wise individuals are able to perceive their own emotions accurately, even when they are contradictory or ambivalent, and to manage them as appropriate to a given situation. Specifically, wise people to not suppress negative feelings but also do not dwell extensively on them.” Emotion regulation skills tend to increase over time and “may be another reason why wisdom is often associated with old age. Young adults may sometimes be overwhelmed by strong feelings if faced with novel, distressing events….”

The authors of the MORE Model take “a dynamic perspective” regarding these four resources. “We do not see the four resources as stable personality characteristics that people do or do not bring with them when they encounter fundamental life challenges. Rather, we suggest that they co-develop with each other and with wisdom, in an interactive way, over the life span.” 

“It is unlikely that there is a specific point in life at which an individual ‘achieves’ wisdom,” they note. “Wise people would probably say that the development of wisdom never ends….”

Scientific Models of Personal Wisdom

A variety of scientific models of personal wisdom was collected, edited and analyzed in a book entitled “The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom” by Michael Ferrari and Nic Weststrate of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in 2013. In their final summary chapter of the book cited here, they cite ancient definitions of wisdom that have stood the test of time: “Taken together, wisdom can be understood as living the best life possible through the use of all of the skills that civilization has accumulated.”  Then they list seven different models or approaches to personal wisdom along with the researchers who have promoted them (see the original article for full citations):

“1. Wisdom as decision-making ability (Staudinger; Sternberg)

“2.  Wisdom as pragmatically relevant insight (Vervaeke & Ferraro)

“3.  Wisdom as self-transcendent insight (Levenson & Aldwin; Rosch; Takahashi)

“4.  Wisdom as a set of traits or personality characteristics (Ardelt, Achenbaum, & Oh; Glück & Bluck)

“5.  Wisdom as a social phenomenon (Edmondson)

“6.  Wisdom as a narrative process (Ferrari, Weststrate, & Petro)

“7.  Some combination of these viewpoints (Sanders & Jeste; Wink & Dillon; Yang).

“This wide range of approaches reveals that the definition of wisdom, and how to gather evidence for it or to foster it, is far from settled….” They then attempt to combine all these models of wisdom into a “range concept,” meaning a continuum dimension with the extreme positions at each end. “The following dimensions seem to capture many of the different ways of thinking about personal wisdom described in this book:

• “Interpersonal activity to intrapsychic state of mind. This first distinction effectively captures the original distinction Staudinger … makes between general and personal wisdom: General wisdom is said to be interpersonal, whereas personal wisdom is said to be intrapersonal….
• “Subjective experience to objective artifact. This distinction captures Ardelt’s (2004) critique of Baltes’ Berlin Wisdom Paradigm [as noted in this article above]. Ardelt is interested in the ideal subjective experience of wise people, while Baltes believed wisdom can be contained in objective artifacts like books or legal codes. …
• “Self-concern (prudential coping and flourishing) to self-transcendent (selfless concern for all known reality)—reminiscent of the Aristotelian distinction between phronesis and sophia, respectively….[Sophia means theoretical or transcendental wisdom and phronesis means practical wisdom.]
• “Rational reflection on lived experience to contemplation of experience itself (‘intellective’ or ‘mystical’ experience). This distinction is what some contributors feel divides the ordinary wisdom needed to live a successful life in one’s community from the extraordinary wisdom of self-transcendence. It is in this sense that Rosch and others believe the deepest wisdom must be accessed by a new kind of mind or spirit.
• “Imperfect to (perhaps inhumanly) perfect. This distinction is often characteristic of the theological distinction between human and divine wisdom and does not really make an appearance in this volume [by Ferrari and Westrate], except perhaps in considering the religious source of wisdom in the figure of Jesus in chapters by Wink and Dillon and Ferrari et al.

“Given this conceptual range, no one should expect an analytic definition of wisdom. Rather, wisdom is more of an ideal of which particular exemplars like Jesus or the Buddha are considered perfect examples….”

Paradoxes that Obscure a Unitary Model of Wisdom

In another section of their summary article, Ferrari and Westrate explore “Paradoxes that Obscure a Unitary Definition of Wisdom.” Here too they use “ranges” or continuums:

• “Wisdom is both subjective and objective. The objective actions of the wise—or even historical documents describing them—carry traces of their subjective experiences of wisdom [such as the words of the Buddha].” 
• “Wisdom involves both knowledge and uncertainty. Wise people know what they do not know and act accordingly, either to seek out new information or to accept that some outcomes are inherently uncertain and unknowable….
• “Wisdom is both timely and timeless. Wisdom is concerned with timeless human predicaments (suffering, death), and yet it is designed to suit particular contexts. It often emerges through reflection on immediate and deeply contextual personal experiences….
• “Wisdom involves both loss and gain. We gain wisdom sometimes through failed expectations and loss of illusions, attachments, and aversions—losses that can be a source of joy… or at least of personal growth….
• “Wisdom involves self-development through selflessness (or self-transcendence). Awareness of one’s subjective bias overcomes it. There is a dialectical relationship between selflessness and self-development…: Only people with a deep knowledge of themselves and how their identity is socially constructed (including meaningful obligations and responsibilities) can develop personally to the point of overcoming their self-centeredness….
• “Wisdom requires involvement through detachment. Lacking egocentric self-centeredness,
• the wise have a concern for collective well-being that allows them to be both personally detached and collectively engaged in their actions….
• “Wisdom involves both willful (deliberate) surrender and active nonaction. Positional/situational power can achieve maximum effect with minimum effort; thus, the freedom to be one’s authentic self requires self-transcendence (selflessness). By living in the moment and seeing its potentials clearly, action then becomes personal without being egocentric….
• “Wisdom requires change through acceptance. By accepting how things are, one’s perspective changes, and with that, often possibilities for action arise….
• “…We need wisdom to understand wisdom…. We perform better when supported by more expert or more knowledgeable peers or even by externalizing cognitive functions that were originally social. On this view, we should not be surprised if we are wiser when we have a chance to discuss with others or even if we imagine we are doing so….”
• While Ferrari and Weststrake acknowledge that there is no unified definition of wisdom that everyone can agree on, certainly not in the scientific community, they consider this diversity a strength. They note that “we are materially better off in Europe and North America than we were 50 years ago, but we are not happier. A main goal of wisdom traditions from ancient to modern times has been to help people better understand human nature and its relationship to the rest of the known cosmos, with all of the paradoxes and contradictions this entails, and the causes and consequences of human suffering and human flourishing.

“Acquiring wisdom is considered essential to optimal human flourishing because it is wisdom that should allow us to live the best life possible—a life in which human potential is actualized and the highest values of human truth, love and freedom are manifest,” they conclude.

Photos above courtesy of Pixabay.com.