Awakening From the Meaning Crisis by John Vervaeke, Ep. 44 — Theories of Wisdom (Summary & Notes)

“I think this is a very important thing to do, to try and figure out what wisdom is from an account of how one becomes wise.”

(In case you missed it: Summary & Notes for Ep. 43: https://markmulvey.medium.com/awakening-from-the-meaning-crisis-by-john-vervaeke-ep-43-cdb2b2a5e8ba)

Ep. 44 — Awakening from the Meaning Crisis — Theories of Wisdom [54:35] https://youtu.be/cK5Npv-OdAE

• Regarding further criticisms of the work of Baltes and Staudinger, Vervaeke argues that there’s a mistake being made at a more theoretical and conceptual level—a mistake of omission, not commission. We’re getting from them a product theory of wisdom, i.e. an account of what wisdom is. Which is a legitimate thing to do, but omits what was so central about the ancient theories of wisdom (Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Buddha…) which is a process theory. e.g. an account of how to overcome foolishness and how to afford flourishing and, from that, try to derive what wisdom is.
• “I think this is a very important thing to do, to try and figure out what wisdom is from an account of how one becomes wise.”
• The process theory of wisdom gives you an account of what self deception is and how you can see through it, to better connect you with reality, other people, etc. It’s complementary to a product theory of wisdom. It invokes the developmental and transformative aspects of wisdom.
• Other criticisms were made by a seminal thinker, Monika Ardelt, in 2004. Her main criticism of the Baltes and Staudinger approach is that they confuse having theoretical knowledge about wisdom with being a wise person. Having that knowledge may be necessary but it’s nowhere near sufficient.
• “People who are wise have gone through a process of self-transformation and achieved a significant amount of self-transcendence that allows them to embody/enact these truths rather than just ‘having’ them in a propositional fashion.”
• She then brings up something important about this distinction between having knowledge and being wise. She makes use of an important philosopher, John Kekes, who makes a distinction between descriptive knowledge and interpretive knowledge. Descriptive knowledge is your knowledge that a cat is a mammal, or that a cat is a predator, etc. Interpretive knowledge is your ability to grasp the significance of your descriptive knowledge. This invokes the centrality of understanding to wisdom.
• Ardelt thinks we should be talking more about the kind of characteristics that the wise person has. (This is important as we’ve already seen the deep connections between wisdom and virtue.) She says there are 3 ways in which we can judge the relative value of our knowledge—3 dimensions of our personhood that are crucial for being a wise person. 1. cognitive factors (comprehension of the significance of meaning of information, particularly for your own development), 2. reflective factors (capable of engaging in multiple perspectives, self-examinations, self-awareness), and 3. affective factors (compassion, i.e. agape; overcoming ego-centrism)

• Vervaeke adds that invoking agape here gives us a way of talking about meaning in life. (Ardelt doesn’t use this term when referring to the affective component) This connection to meaning in life is not clear in Baltes and Staudinger.
• Some of Vervaeke’s criticisms of Ardelt’s work are that it doesn’t give is a processing theory (though it does point to the need for a processing theory) and that it doesn’t have an independent account of foolishness.
• The next important theory to turn to is from Robert Sternberg, whose work runs through the history of the psychology of wisdom. He’s been deeply committed to and tireless in his dedication to pedagogy in this field. There is a deep connection between wisdom and teaching, which was clearly the case in Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha…
• According to Vervaeke, Sternberg’s newer, more recent theory (“A Balanced Theory of Wisdom” [1998]) is more coherent — more tightly integrated — than his prior theory. The core idea surrounds the idea of tacit knowledge/tacit understanding. (Note that this concept is full of aspects of relevance realization) He talks about understanding guiding our ability to adapt to situations, to shape them, and the selection of environments (explore vs. exploit)—practical problems.
• When Sternberg invokes the idea of balance he’s invoking the idea of optimization. (Vervaeke, of course, as also been arguing that relevance realization is an optimization theory). He gives a schematic diagram of his theory, which is largely around balancing your interests:

• Intropersonal (How you’re connected to yourself), Interpersonal (How you’re connected to other people), and Extrapersonal (How you’re connected to the world). These are essentially 3 dimensions of connectedness that go into meaning and life. Implicitly, we could argue, he’s trying to connect wisdom to meaning & life.
• On top of that balanced triangle Sternberg puts another one that is about balance to the environmental context, which includes 3 things are Vervaeke notes are clearly RR: Adapting, Shaping, and Selecting.

• The bottom triangle can be said to be about balancing your interests and the top triangle about balancing your response.
• The top triangle is then directed upward once again, this time towards what Sternberg calls the common good. This sits at the top of the diagram. This may not mean common in the sense that it’s shared by everyone or that everyone benefits from it, but e.g. that everyone is working well together. (Vervaeke has concerns that in using this term Sternberg is being anachronistic here, using one of our central values and attributing it to everyone who is wise. He suggests replacing it with virtue and meaning in life.)
• Running alongside Sternberg’s diagram are Values, which are pictured as indeterminately pointing at the stacked triangles:

• (Is this meant to represent the idea that the wise person is constrained by values? It’s unclear, which is another one of Vervaeke’s criticisms here.)
• One criticisms of Sternberg (apart from being more clear about certain aspects) is that it too, in the end, is still just a product theory and not a process theory. Also, Sternberg has a theory of foolishness but it’s not an independent theory. His theory is that foolishness is an imbalance of these things in his theory of wisdom. i.e. that foolishness is basically a lack of wisdom, but does not explicate how we come to deceive ourselves, etc.

Next up: Awakening From the Meaning Crisis by John Vervaeke, Ep. 45 — The Nature of Wisdom (Summary & Notes) https://markmulvey.medium.com/awakening-from-the-meaning-crisis-by-john-vervaeke-ep-45-eecc99720c3a

List of Books in the Video:

• Edited by Robert J. Sternberg — Wisdom: Its Nature, Origins, and Development
• Edited by Robert J. Sternberg & Jennifer Jordan — A Handbook of Wisdom
• Edited by Robert J. Sternberg & Judith Glück — The Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom
• Edited by Robert J. Sternberg, Howard C. Nusbaum, & Judith Glück — Applying Wisdom to Contemporary World Problems
• Robert J. Sternberg, Linda Jarvin, Elena L. Grigorenko — Teaching for Wisdom, Intelligence, Creativity, and Success
• Robert J. Sternberg — Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized