<aside> 💡

The study investigates the concept of wisdom through cultural-historical wisdom exemplars, revealing three main prototypes: practical, philosophical, and benevolent. Practical wisdom is associated with deep insight into real-life issues and strategic actions to address social problems. Philosophical wisdom is linked to metaphysical truths, while benevolent wisdom is connected to humanitarian causes. The study finds that cultural-historical figures like Jesus and Gandhi are considered the greatest exemplars of wisdom in North American culture. The study also notes gender differences in wisdom nominations, with males more likely to nominate male exemplars and females more likely to nominate female exemplars.

</aside>

Across the various methodological approaches, Bluck and Glück (2005) identified five common characteristics of a wise person: (a) cognitive ability (e.g., knowledgeable, pragmatic, intellectual), (b) insight (e.g., seeing essentials, learning from experience, seeking information), (c) reflective attitude (e.g., introspective, receptive, withdrawn), (d) concern for others (e.g., compassionate, understanding, positive), and (e) real-world skills (e.g., problem-solving skills, giving good advice)

According to exemplar theory (Smith & Zárate, 1990, 1992; Zagzebski, 2015), real-life exemplars—from someone intimately known (e.g., an acquaintance, friend, family member) to public figures (e.g., cultural icon, historical figure)—provide a reference point for individuals when defining or judging concepts like wisdom, or when deciding how to think or act wisely in their own life. According to Rosch’s (1975) theory of semantic categorization, the most central members of the category “wise people” are prototypi- cal of that category; thus, although they vary in their repre- sentativeness, exemplars necessarily instantiate shared characteristics, or family resemblances, that define the latent wisdom prototype (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Examining wis- dom exemplars for shared characteristics can illuminate how wisdom is defined in a given cultural milieu.

Jason et al. (2001) asked participants to nominate the wis- est living person they knew and to describe an episode that demonstrated the nominee’s wisdom. Of 43 participants, approximately 42% nominated a cultural-historical figure, which included religious and spiritual personalities (e.g., Mother Teresa), political leaders (e.g., Nelson Mandela), business leaders (e.g., Steve Jobs), a scientist (Stephen Hawking), and an entertainer (George Burns). Only one exemplar was nominated more than once (former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was nominated 3 times), suggesting that wisdom exemplars are diverse with respect to the public domain in which they operate. Despite the range of distinct nominees, it remains possible that these exemplars may instantiate similar wisdom prototypes.

Prototypes of Wisdom: Is There More Than One Way to Be Wise?

Given the diversity of exemplars observed in the previous studies, it is reasonable to assume that there may be more than one latent prototype of wisdom. In a historical survey of the wisdom literature from the ancient Near East to the Renaissance, Assmann (1994) identified four wisdom prototypes (i.e., “four types of the sage”) exemplified through the characters of Solomon, Prospero, Polonius, and Jaques. King Solomon represents a prototype of wisdom based on excep- tional judgment and decision-making characteristic of a wise ruler or court judge. Prospero, a wizard-like character in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, represents a cosmological or metaphysical wisdom comparable with scientific knowledge today. Polonius, advisor to the king in Hamlet, parodies the “old wise man,” who offers practical advice through maxims and proverbs aimed at solving life’s problems. Finally, Jaques, a professional fool in Shakespeare’s play As You Like It, represents a skeptical wisdom that recognizes the impermanent, paradoxical, and sometimes illogical nature of reality.

With respect to exemplar characteristics, 81 male exem- plars and 25 female exemplars were nominated. Among par- ticipants, 147 nominated one or more male exemplars, 18 nominated one or more female exemplars, and 15 nominated at least one male and one female exemplar. Chi-square anal- yses revealed that males were more likely to nominate male exemplars, χ 2(1) = 8.57, p = .003, and females were more likely to nominate female exemplars, χ2(1) = 12.56, p < .001. Exemplar gender did not depend on age or education level of the nominator.

Although these exemplars are probably consid- ered wise for reasons independent of their gender, histori- cally, males have had greater opportunities to express their wisdom publicly and are thus more likely to be recognized and nominated as exemplars. Interestingly, the top four nomi- nees were all martyrs, suggesting an association between dying for one’s beliefs—the ultimate self-sacrifice—and per- ceptions of wisdom

Assmann’s (1994) historical survey of the wisdom literature discussed earlier proposed four possi- ble prototypes: judicial, cosmological, practical, and skepti- cal. These prototypes represent much of the content of expert theoretical models of wisdom and findings from implicit theory research, with perhaps one important omission: Experts and laypersons consistently report that compassion and related qualities (e.g., empathy, concern for the greater good, altruism) are an essential characteristic of wisdom (e.g., Ardelt, 2003; Glück et al., 2005).

Unexpectedly, participants’ familiarity differed according to prototype, F(2, 402) = 49.57, p = .072, = .198. Bonferroni- corrected pairwise comparisons showed that participants were more familiar with the practical (p < .001) and benevo- lent prototypes (p < .001) than the philosophical prototype; the practical and benevolent prototypes did not differ in familiarity (p = 1.00). This may be because information about philosophical exemplars is less accessible than the other prototypes, requiring specialized knowledge or instruc- tion. Our second hypothesis was supported, namely, that wis- dom prototypes differed in their likability, F(1.799, 361.685) = 18.51, p < .001, = .084. Pairwise comparisons showed that the benevolent prototype was favored over the practical (p = .020) and philosophical prototypes (p < .001). The practical prototype was also favored over the philosophical prototype (p < .001). Finally, our third hypothesis was not confirmed: Perceived wisdom varied as a function of wisdom prototype, F(1.939, 389.790) = 7.321, p = .001, = .035. On average, exemplars from the philosophical (p = .001) and benevolent prototypes (p = .007) were rated as wiser than those of the practical prototype. The benevolent and philosophical proto- types did not differ in perceived wisdom (p = 1.00). It would seem that concern with metaphysical truths and humanitar- ian causes carries greater currency than involvement with everyday, socio-political problems when it comes to subjec- tive ratings of wisdom.

At the exemplar level, the highest perceived wisdom rat- ings were assigned to Jesus (M = 4.40, SD = 1.03), Einstein (M = 4.21, SD = .91), Socrates (M = 4.13, SD = 0.98), and Gandhi (M = 4.02, SD = 1.12). Notably, Jesus and Gandhi were the two most frequently nominated exemplars by a large margin. They were also among the top three exemplars in the Paulhus et al. (2002) study. Thus, there is convergence across methods and samples that Jesus and Gandhi are per- haps the greatest exemplars of wisdom in North American culture.