Arete Initiative - Wisdom

Can Academic Blogging Advance Wisdom Research?

wattawa — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:48:44 GMT

Blogs are slowly but surely changing the face of academia. In a world where universities are run like businesses (intellectual property and patents are now, given traditions of disinteredness in academia, still somewhat uncomfortably the norm (1)), and scholars, especially scientists, perennially run into the problem that negative results don’t get published, blogs may offer a way to retain the university’s ideals of vigorous and open pursuit of knowledge while simultaneously launching scholars into the Internet age (2).

Blogging allows for rapid discussion between scholars worldwide on topics ranging from concepts, current events, literature, to data analysis or the sharing of tools. Not only may scholars use blogs to receive feedback from colleagues, they can also use the medium to inform a larger public about their research. Some feel that blogging may be a right step towards reforming the academic publishing industry, by allowing partial credit to be given to those first to blog an idea. More importantly, some feel that blogging might expand the focus of academic work, which is often almost exclusively concerned with publishing in academic journals (3).

The move towards blogging is timely. Studies show that researchers, in an ever-increasing number, publish and patent in teams (4). This trend is not limited to sciences like biology, chemistry, or physics, where it has been suggested that team science merely grows with the cost and scale of ‘big science.’ For example, in 1955 17.5% of publications were authored in teams, whereas in 2000 this number had jumped to 51.5%. Publications in mathematics, wherein the ‘solo genius’ stereotype remains among the strongest, show a similar trend. Moreover, these studies tend to be higher impact, that is to say, field changing (5). Among the many causal factors for this trend is the necessity for teamwork in an environment of increasing specialization. Blogs may facilitate intra and interdisciplinary communications in a world where scholars have already acknowledged the advantages of collaboration (6).

Blogging and collaboration also have the potential to create a new field of wisdom research spanning multiple disciplines by creating a community of scholars. The Wisdom Research Network website was designed as an essentially collaborative tool, allowing scholars to share ideas, data, profiles and opinions. We will actively recruit both Wisdom Network members and others to contribute to this discussion forum. I also welcome and encourage you to post responses, even if they are merely brief thoughts or comments. If you would like to post a discussion question, please email admin@wisdomresearch.org.

Given recent trends in academic blogging and team science, as well as calls for professionals to engage with the public about their research, I suspect, from a mere lay understanding, that creating a blogging community about wisdom is indeed a wise decision. But maybe that’s just hubris. I’ll leave that for you to determine.

- Joy Wattawa, Assistant Director for Interdisciplinary Outreach and Communications, Arete Initiative

If you seek guidance regarding how to write a blog entry, please see our Academic Blogging Style Guidelines, linked as a pdf at the top of this page.

References

1) For more about academy/ industry tensions see Merton’s famous theory on the “The Normative Structure of Science” in Merton, Robert King. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973. Also, see Merton's "The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science are Considered," Science, Vol. 159, No. 3810, pg. 56, 1968, which describes trends in academic publishing that tend to renforce the conclusions of those single authors already recognized. For a more modern view on these tensions and another view on how technology impacts how universities work and generate knowledge, see Kathryn Packer, Andrew Webster. “Patenting Culture in Science: Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility (1996).” Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 427-453.

2) “So, might blogging be subversive precisely because it makes real the very vision of intellectual life that the university has never managed to achieve?” the author states in “Attack of the career-killing blogs: when academics post online, do they risk their jobs?,” by Robert S. Boynton (2005). Slate Magazine. http://www.slate.com/id/2130466/ This gives an excellent summary of the controversy surrounding blogging in academia just as the trend was taking off.

3) “By the Blog: academics tread carefully” by Zoe Corbyn (2008), Times Higher Education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=403827&c=1

4) Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones, Brian Uzzi (2007). “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in the Production of Knowledge.” Science; Vol. 316. no. 5827, pp. 1036 – 1039. Here, team is defined as two or more authors. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5827/1036

5) Ibid., Higher impact is defined here as an increased number of citations. This has been shown to correlate with research quality. For further details, see paper.

6) Many academic blogs already exist. Please follow this link to an “Academic blog portal” which allows you to search many of them by subject: http://wiki.henryfarrell.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

7) Julia Davies and Guy Merchant. “Looking from the Inside Out: Academic Blogging as New Literacy,” A New Literacies Sampler. Peter Lang, 2006.

Can wisdom be taught with words?

wattawa — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:26:06 GMT

Is wisdom a characteristic of a person or is it a skill that anyone could acquire? The idea of the wise person like Socrates or King Solomon has figured prominently in many cultures and suggests wisdom may be viewed as an individual trait. Even when wisdom is viewed as learnable, people often think that wisdom takes a lifetime to acquire. Both of these views of wisdom suggest that it cannot really be taught. In this respect wisdom might be understood as similar to the way many people think about intelligence—you either have it or you don’t. Just as psychologists talk about “g” (Spearman, 1904) as a general measure of intelligence (although see Sternberg, 2002), there could be some property “w” that reflects the general wisdom of a person.

However, if we move beyond the folk psychology of intelligence, research has suggested that intelligence is context-specific and even mutable (Sternberg, 1987). The suggestion that wisdom may be specific to particular contexts and knowledge (e.g., Sternberg, 1998) and may represent a kind of expertise (Baltes & Staudinger, 1993), also suggests that perhaps wisdom can be learned—and thus taught (Sternberg, 2001), even without wading through decades of experience. But if wisdom can be learned, how would we teach it (see Reznitskaya & Sternberg, 2004)? For that matter, how can we know wisdom when it is manifest in an individual? In order to teach wisdom, we need some metric by which to measure learning.

If wisdom depends on knowledge, the classroom might serve as a kind of learning paradigm. Indeed, we often talk about imparting wisdom to others and the importance of words of wisdom and Socratic dialogue could be viewed in just this way. People seek wisdom through sage advice, and stories and fables are written to convey wisdom. Clearly language could play an important role in teaching wisdom and language is also important in measuring wisdom scientifically. The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Kunzmann & Baltes, 2005) depends entirely on the use of language. People read stories about real-life situations and must give appropriate advice. For example, you might read a story about a teenage girl’s pregnancy andbe asked about the advice to give her. Your analysis of the situation is scored for mentioning a variety of factors that should be taken into account for wise advice.

Although this might suggest some close connection between language and wisdom, for most people, language is simply a communication channel. Language plays an important role in any kind of social interaction and therefore its only function with respect to wisdom may be the medium of communication. Thinking about language as a communication channel, we think about words and sentences as a vehicle for transporting mental states and attitudes from one mind to another. The general scientific study of language accords with this view. Words are viewed as symbols that stand for concepts and sentences combine these words into logical propositions through syntax. Indeed, scientists generally think there are two channels of communication in spoken language. One is the propositional structure that symbolically conveys ideas and descriptions and is used to ask questions and issue imperatives; the second is the prosodic structure that analogically conveys attitudes and emotions and intentions. If someone says, “Hilary Clinton is our new Secretary of State,” with rising intonation, she may be conveying incredulity.

Can wisdom be conveyed by just these two channels of language? Wisdom involves the interaction of cognitive processes with emotional processes and social values. It seems difficult to imagine that this combination of meaning and feeling can be transmitted effectively if language is limited in this way. But perhaps language can do more than just send symbolic forms with an attiudinal value attached. Haidt’s (2003) research on moral dumbfounding suggests that we can use language to convey situations that directly reach into our deep affective reactions and for which we cannot respond adequately using language. Listening to some speeches such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 or Barbara Jordan’s 1976 keynote address to the Democratic National Convention or Mario Cuomo’s 1984 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention (see these at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/newtop100speeches.htm), there is an impact that goes beyond understanding the speaker’s intended meaning and attitude. While it may be that we can learn lessons from the propositional structure of language, perhaps imparting wisdom also depends on language impact or an effect beyond meaning.

It is interesting that this very issue has been debated during the recent Presidential Primary. Clinton argued that words can be understood and evaluated but in the end, they are just words. Obama argued that speech has the power to impel action that goes beyond simply agreeing with an argument (see video clips below). While these are not scientific arguments, they outline an interesting question about the nature of language and its potential connection to wisdom. Some models of nonverbal communication (e.g., Owren & Bachorowski, 2003) suggest that there might be a more direct route for language to affect the listener. Shintel (Shintel et al., 2006, Shintel & Nusbaum, 2007, 2008) has shown that speakers vary properties of their speech to analogically gesture acoustically descriptions of events and objects and listeners can understand these acoustic gestures. Analogical acoustic gestures in speech represent a different channel of communication from symbolic-propositional and analogic-attiudinal and suggest that we may need a different model of language to understand communication.

[Video]

Teaching wisdom may require more than conveying ideas that can be understood. The difference between a speech that is understood and a speech with impact seems clear in subjective experience, although understanding this difference scientifically will pose a challenge. Is a clear and understandable message sufficient to teach wisdom or must such instruction rise to a different level of impact on the listener? Understanding how to communicate wisdom is a fundamental scientific problem and addressing this problem may reveal shortcomings in our current conceptualizations of language.

Howard Nusbaum, Co-Director
Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience
Department of Psychology
The University of Chicago

References

Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (1993). The search for a psychology of wisdom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 75–80.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(pp. 852-870).

Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2005). The psychology of wisdom: Theoretical and empirical challenges. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), Handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 110–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2003). Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic communication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 183-200.

Reznitskaya, A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Teaching students to make wise judgments: The
“teaching for wisdom” program. In P. A. Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.) Positive psychology in
practice, (pp. 181-196). New York: Wiley.

Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167-177.

Shintel, H., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2007). The sound of motion in spoken language: Visual information conveyed by acoustic properties of speech. Cognition, 105, 681-690.

Shintel, H., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2008). Moving to the speed of sound: Context modulation of the effect of acoustic properties of speech. Cognitive Science, 32, 1063-1074.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General intelligence," objectively determined and measured . American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching intelligence: The application of cognitive psychology to the
improvement of intellectual skills. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking
skills: Theory and practice (pp. 182–218). New York: Freeman.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347-365.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in
educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 227–245.

Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Beyond g: The theory of successful intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, & E.
L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 447–479).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

How can wisdom research benefit from social neuroscience?

jdarragh — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:14:02 GMT

A social neuroscience perspective might help scholars build psychological models for holistic properties like wisdom. Here John Cacioppo introduces this perspective, and how it informs our understanding of humans and our social world.

What Is Our Fundamental Nature?
By John T. Cacioppo, Ph.D. on October 20, 2008 in Loneliness

What is our fundamental human nature? To address this question, biological, behavioral, and cognitive scientists in the 20th century tended to focus on single organisms, organs, cells, intracellular processes, and genes. From the perspective of many scientists during the 20th century, the contributions of the social world to behavior were thought best to be considered later, if at all. Social factors were thought to be of minimal interest with respect to the basic development, structure, or processes of the brain and behavior. To the extent that social factors were suspected of being relevant, their consideration was thought to be so complicated that they should be considered at some later date.

Further fueling this focus on the solitary individual in scientific analyses was the dominant metaphor of the mind - the isolated desktop computer. Complete with input, processing, long and short-term memory stores, and output stages, the brain was thought to be analogous to the hardware and the mind to software. Culture in this context was like the computer operating system -Mac or PC.

How things had changed by the dawn of the 21st century. If you had a computer that was connected only to the electrical outlet, you would not have a very powerful computer. To understand computers today, one has to appreciate their capabilities as a connected collective. Culture, in this context, is not so much about the operating system in a solitary computer as it is in the norms, conventions, and practices that have evolved to promote the effective connection and interaction among a set of computers.

Whereas computers have been connected on the order of years, hominoids have been mobile and broadband connected for hundreds of thousands of years. We like to think of ourselves as individualists, but we are fundamentally social organisms. We are born to the most prolonged period of abject dependency of any mammal, and for our species to survive, human infants must instantly engage their parents in protective behavior, and the parents must care enough about their offspring to nurture and protect them. Even once grown we are no match in a one-on-one contest against a cougar or wolf much less a lion, tiger, shark, or rogue elephant. Our major evolutionary advantage is our brain and ability to communicate, remember, plan, and work together. Our survival depends on our collective abilities, not our individual might. Teamwork meant not only that increasing numbers of children might survive, but that these creatures could afford to be more developmentally and behaviorally complex. Greater behavioral latitude led to greater diversity, which led to innovation, which led to more rapid cultural learning.

The social nature of the human species is not simply an add-on, either. It has fundamentally shaped the evolution of our biological design, including the rapid increase in neocortical connectivity and intelligence. According to Robyn Dunbar and colleagues' social brain hypothesis, deducing better ways to find food, avoid perils, and navigate territories has adaptive value for large mammals, but the complexities of these ecological demands pale by comparison to the complexities of social living. Among the demands of social living are learning by social observation; recognizing the shifting status of friends and foes; anticipating and coordinating efforts between two or more individuals; using language to communicate, reason, teach, and deceive others; orchestrating relationships, ranging from pair bonds and families to friends, bands, and coalitions; navigating complex social hierarchies, social norms and cultural developments; subjugating self-interests to the interests of the pair bond or social group in exchange for the possibility of long term benefits; recruiting support to sanction individuals who violate group norms; and doing all this across time frames that stretch from the distant past to multiple possible futures. Cross-species comparisons suggest that the evolution of large and metabolically expensive brains is more closely associated with social than ecological complexity.

Humans create and depend on emergent organizations beyond the individual- structures ranging from dyads and families to institutions and cultures. These emergent structures evolved hand in hand with genetic, neural and hormonal mechanisms to support them because the consequent social behaviors helped these organisms survive, reproduce, and care for offspring sufficiently long that they too reproduced. These higher organizations have long been apparent, but we are beginning to understand their neural, hormonal, and genetic substrates and consequences. Investigations of these social structures and biological substrates, and the interplay between the two, form the basis of an interdisciplinary field that two decades ago Gary Berntson and I termed "social neuroscience." I will have more to say about this field, and about our fundamental social nature, in future blogs. In the meantime, I would appreciate hearing what you think.

Computation and the Humanities

matthew — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:25:23 GMT

The University of Chicago is hosting a Colloquium on Digital Humanities and Computer Science, November 1-3,2008. Here are the details:

The goal of the annual Chicago Colloquium on Digital Humanities and Computer Science (DHCS) is to bring together researchers and scholars in the humanities and computer science to examine the current state of digital humanities as a field of intellectual inquiry and to identify and explore new directions and perspectives for future research. The first DHCS Colloquium in 2006 examined the challenges and opportunities posed by the “million books” digitization projects. The second DHCS Colloquium in 2007 focused on searching and querying as both tools and methodologies.
The theme of the third Chicago DHCS Colloquium is “Making Sense” – an exploration of how meaning is created and apprehended at the transition from the digital to the analog.

With the number of people in the humanities and in computation considering the organization and hierarchy of knowledge, this seems like it could be a productive direction for a discussion. I have attached a recent article from Jennifer Rowley that considers the 'data-information-knowledge-wisdom'(DIKW) hierarchy. Interesting to know what some humanities folks think of it.

Ancient wisdom studies

Charles Stirton — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:19:00 GMT

In a recent article (which I have tried unsuccessfully to load a reference of to the Publications list on this site), I tried to outline a wisdom approach which a number of friends and I have loosely termed ancient wisdom studies. I am interested if anyone else might be interested in this topic and especially in composite wisdom diagrams and epic tales which encapsulate a culture's wisdom.

Reference

Stirton, C.H. (2007) Wisdom of the Ancients. BRLSI Proceedings (2006-2007) 10: 76-79. I can email a copy of the paper to anyone who woul dlike to receive it.

What is wise technology?

Quinnovate — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:05:55 GMT

If we assume technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself, then can we infer that wise technology would be one that leads to wise outcomes? I'm interested in how to design technology that can either or both help us learn to be wiser, and actually be wiser in our outcomes whether we are wise ourselves.

Sternberg's got a model of explicitly discussing wisdom to help us learn to be wise, so arguably a technology that supported us in making wise decisions in a process-scaffolding way would foster wisdom when coupled with some reflection.

So how can technology help us be wise? Going back to Sternberg's models (my background's psychology, so I find his easy to use but I'm open to other models, recommendations?), that would suggest that technology that supports us in determining outcomes might support us in considering both short- and long-term outcomes, and for not just ourselves and our immediate associates, but for society as a whole. And how do we address the values involved? Do we predetermine them? Bring in proposed sets?

Coevolution

Fisherman — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:12:45 GMT

I am considering a change in the formulation of the concept of evolutionary history that will help our social wisdom. I offer a change in the word itself and call it coevolution instead of evolution. Everything is link by past experiences.

Wisdom of Crowds

Douglas.Reay — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:01:51 GMT

James Surowiecki wrote a book entitled The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations in which he discussed under what circumstances groups tend to make better decisions that the individuals making up the group.

This idea has been taken up by a number of online forums, many of which have deliberately tried to shape their dynamics to match Surowiecki's criteria through technological means. In particular a lot of work has been done on trust networks, that add metadata allowing the participant's opinions of each other's competance to be taken into account when weighing a collective decision. [*1]

Does anyone have suggestions as to whether this forum ("Defining Wisdom") could benefit from some mechanism (beyond the existing taging mechanism) of categorising or rating users or posts. If so, how it could or should be done? And how would you see the resulting metadata being used to make the better/useful/insightful posts more accessible? Could it do more than that, and actually produce better collective opinions from this site than produced by any individual poster (say, when combined with polls about the nature of wisdom)?

Douglas

[*1] For the mathematically inclined, have a look at this essay on the attack resistant trust metric metadata used by Advogato.

Wisdom, Wealth and Intelligence

Douglas.Reay — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:13:10 GMT

Jay L. Zagorsky of the Center for Human Resource Research at Ohio State University has been publishing some interesting papers based on a longitudinal study of the links between income, net worth, financial distress (eg going overdrawn), intelligence and other factors (such as body mass index).

There's an article in USA Today about one of the papers.

The study notes "a one point increase in IQ test scores is related to an income increase of $346 per year. But at most, that same one-point increase in IQ leads to a net worth increase of at most $83"

Is there any research out there similar to this, but which also lists what people chose to spent their money on, rather than saving it to accumulate net worth. Did they give it to charity? Have more children? Educate their children better? Travel the world? Live a more luxurious lifestyle?

What about those whose IQ enabled them to earn a higher hourly wage, but who chose to use that to spend fewer hours working and more time with their family?

I have more questions than answers, but I'd be very interested to hear of other people's views in this area, or of related research.

Why call "Ecological Wisdom" wisdom?

Douglas.Reay — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:03:40 GMT

According to the Green Party of New Zealand, the tenents of Ecological Wisdom are:

* Human beings are part of the natural world.
* This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible.
* Ecological sustainability is paramount.
* Whatever we take from the earth, we must give back to the earth.

This manifesto has its origins in the personal philosophy of Arne Næss, who drew on James Lovelock and Peter Singer.

However the Deep Ecology movement takes the first point of the manifesto beyond a pragmatic 'utilitarian' position that Gaian vew point is a useful tool that helps manage the resources of the environment for human purposes. They treat it as a moral imperitive, and tie it into various psychological, sociological and political theories and agendas such as decentralisation of authority, redistribution of resources, non-violent direct action and self-realisation.

So why does the title of this philosophy contain the word "Wisdom"? For a philosophy to name itself wise in its own title seems to be pre-judging the issue.

Which is ironic. Because Næss himself also wrote on other areas of philosophy. In particular he was interested in how to make public discussions more civilized, and recommended six things to avoid:

Avoiding tendentious irrelevance
Examples: Personal attacks, claims of opponents' motivation, explaining reasons for an argument.
Avoiding tendentious reciting
Reproductions should be neutral regarding the subject of the debate.
Avoiding tendentious ambiguity
Ambiguous arguments may be easily adopted to suit criticism.
Avoiding tendentious use of straw men
Assigning views to the opponent that he or she does not hold.
Avoiding tendentious original research
Information put forward should never be untrue or incomplete, and one should not withhold any relevant information.
Avoiding tendentious tone of voice
Examples: irony, sarcasm, pejoratives, exaggeration, subtle (or open) threats.

I can't help thinking that Næss, who thought that everyone should develop their own philosophy, would not necessarily have approved of the tendentious way the title is now used.

Douglas

Is there such a thing as organizational wisdom?

pbennett@resourcedevelopment.net — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:51:20 GMT

My work in organizational development has lead me to have a keen interest in the concept of organizational wisdom. From the perspective of our global need to develop responsible organizations that can help to solve some of society's most pressing challenges including the sustainability of our planet I am interested in exploring topics regarding wise leadership and how we might facilitate the conscious development of group wisdom within organizational systems. If you are interested in this topic I would like to share ideas and listen to yours. Perhaps we could develop a forum on this matter?

Who were the leaders of the past?

TMK — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:52:28 GMT

I am trying to locate literature explaining the role of wisdom in selection of leaders throughout the ages.

For example, is it true that in ancient societies the leaders were considered to be the wisest within their group?

Is there any support for this claim?

Thank you,

Tzur

Wisdom in a University?

tom abeles — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:08:46 GMT

Underpinning this effort is a budget of 2 million dollars (stated on the web site) One of the efforts is to select individuals who have their Ph.D. for less than ten years and fund their exploration. The questions just multiply, for example:

1) why should wisdom be found in a "university" or by those who reside within such an institution. History has not shown such wisdom to be found in Ivory Towers. And particularly within the ranks of junior faculty or young Ph.D.'s whose career is tied to publish/perish in accepted publications which represent conventional "wisdom".

2) Throughout history few "wise persons" have been depicted as youths, with certain exceptions such as Christ for example, and it is not clear, even in the present day, that the locus of individuals rests inside the Ivory Tower.

Yes, some have argued for the Ivory Tower- Nick Maxwell in England; and recently with the rise of virtual worlds, several academics have suggested that the philosophical underpinnings for these world creations should be led by academics. Yet that leadership has failed to materialize with any credibility

John Brockman has suggested that the humanities have turned inward and defaulted, yielding the bully pulpit to the sciences, creating what he calls a 3rd Culture.

Not since Plato penned his Republic has there been so many wanting to claim the crown and scepter of philosopher king, particularly from within The Academy.

Should we trust the "wisdom" of "The Academy" to seek the lead?

wisdom in religious and philosophical traditions

Thomas Daffern — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:49:43 GMT

Dear Friends

I am teaching a class coming up in Poole, Dorset, UK on wisdom etc. see enclose course outline - if anyone has contacts in the Dorset, England region - tell them to come along ! It shoujld be a great class ! Itis premised on the idea of a period table of the world's religions - something I have devised for my teaching use.

ULITMATE REALITY, METAPHYSICS AND ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE WORLD’S RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL TRADITIONS - 2008

April 9 - Introduction – Towards a Periodic Table of the World’s Religions

April 16 - Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism

April 23 - Sumerian, Babylonian, Zoroastrian and Bahai Philosophies

April 30 – Judaism and the Kabbalah and Phoenician (Canaanite) religion

May 7 - Islam, Sufism and Sikhism

May 14 - Greek and Roman philosophy

May 21 - Druidry and Celtic teachings

June 4 - Chinese and Japanese philosophy

June 11 - Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian Paganism

June 18 - Wicca, Neopaganism, Shamanism and New Religious Traditions

June 25 – Christianities: Gnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Ecumenical, Orthodox traditions

July 2 - Ancient Egyptian philosophy and African traditional teachings

July 9 - Modern Spiritualism, A.R. Wallace, Theosophy, Anthroposophy and New Age Teachings

July 16 - Modern Science and scientific philosophies, quantum theory and consciousness

This pioneering Summer 2008 study course is the third and final session in the series of adult evening classes courses given by Dr. Thomas Daffern, Head of Religious Studies and Philosophy at Poole Grammar School. He has taught and travelled in over 30 countries worldwide and has twice spoken at the United Nations Headquarters about peace studies and global spirituality. It is taking place Wednesday evenings in room one at Poole Grammar School from 6 – 8pm. The cost for the entire course is 65 pounds (50 pounds concessions). The purpose of the course is to advance understanding of different philosophical and spiritual traditions, and to enable students to gain a broad and also deep knowledge of different spiritual paths, so as to make informed life choices for their own spiritual journeys, and also to help guide others through the complexities of life. By focusing on the esoteric philosophical core teachings of each tradition, we hope gradually to unveil a transpersonal common denominator underlying all the spiritual paths of mankind and to point the way towards peace and interfaith harmony. Thomas is also chairing the 2008 Annual A.R. Wallace Memorial Lecture at Poole Grammar School on May 7^th. To book a place on the course please send a cheque payable to IIPSGP, addressed to: Dr. Thomas Daffern, Poole Grammar School, Gravel Hill, Poole, Dorset, BH17 9JU. Tel. 07951 600959 or email iipsgp@educationaid.net Further details of IIPSGP, an international network of philosophers and scholars working for international peace, on www.educationaid.net. Publications by Thomas Daffern are also available on www.lulu.com/iipsgp

7 gifts of the Holy Spirit

jcrist — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:53:52 GMT

"The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, a spirit of Counsel and of Strength, a Spirit of Knowledge and of Piety, and his delight shall be the fear of the Lord." (Is 11: 1-2) Christian writers, from the second century onward, developed a rich tradition of reflection on the "seven gifts of the Holy Spirit," based on this passage from the book of Isaiah in the Bible. The gifts were viewed as a spiritual path or ladder, beginning with "fear of the Lord" and reaching upward to Wisdom. The gifts are believed to be the fruit of ongoing cooperation between divine grace the human personality.

In addition, the concept of fear of the Lord provides a common ground between Christian spirituality and Islam.

I would be interested in a conversation with anyone who has would like to explore the contribution of theology -- Christian, Jewish, or Muslim -- to the understanding of Wisdom.

The wisdom of posting to this forum

andrewsw — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:55:49 GMT

I think it natural to distinguish between process and product. Is wisdom a process or a product? In posting to this forum, am I displaying a wise (or not) process (and thus evidencing a property of the process that lead me to do this post?) or am I displaying a wise (or not) product (and posting a post that that is itself, independent of me, either wise or not)?

I don't pretend to know a "right" answer to the question I ask, but, like (I imagine) all, I have opinons and favored possibilities.

There are certainly a wide number of possible understandings of what wisdom is. I thought it would be good to get started with a discussion on this, to hear others' views, and to try to see the potential of this forum realized. (If no one responds, I guess it is a sign that I was not so wise to post this.)

Wisdom-Based Epistemology Simulated Utilizing the Architecture of Ethical AI

sagacity — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:00:58 GMT

The study of wisdom represents a challenging endeavor in that it occurs over a broad spectrum of highly specific and/or more general interpretations. The most specific of these are the traditional philosophical interpretations originating in the classical Greek system of value ethics. The enduring humanitarian-focussed wisdom of the classical philosopher is traditionally contrasted with the more social oriented domain of the cardinal virtue of prudence (which complements justice, fortitude, and temperance in the city-state of Plato's era). A dramatic new innovation in the conceptual organization and structure of the traditional listings of major virtues has emerged from a recent set of publication by the current grant applicant, serving as a foundation for avenues for promising new research within the field.

Although a detailed account is not possible in this brief proposal, in essence, the instinctual terminology of instrumental conditioning provides an elementary foundation for a subjective hierarchy of the traditional groupings of virtues, values, and ideals. This innovation is further arranged as a hierarchy of metaperspectives – an ascending sequence of personal, group, universal, humanitarian, and transcendental power levels specialized into both authority and follower roles - as partially depicted below.

Nostalgia . H-Worship ......... Guilt . Blame
Glory …… Prudence .......... Honor . Justice
Providence . Faith ....…..... Liberty . Hope
Grace ……. Beauty ….... Free-will . Truth
Tranquility . Ecstasy ........ Equality . Bliss

Desire . Approval ............ Worry . Concern
Dignity . Temperance ...... Integrity . Fortitude
Civility . Charity ............... Austerity . Decency
Magnanim . Goodness .... Equanimity . Wisdom
Love . Joy .........………............ Peace . Harmony

According to this schematic diagram, Wisdom is assigned an upper humanitarian level within the ethical hierarchy, in concert with its prominence in Classical Greek philosophy. In particular, the philosopher role has long been revered for critical reasoning and crucial insights into universal truths. In the spirit of the stirring classical injunction: "Know thyself," philosophy has painstakingly refined the collective wisdom of humanity over the span of countless generations. Philosophy is primarily eclectic in nature, drawing extensively from the rich wellspring of accumulated wisdom and truth. This enduring interpretation necessarily suggests the existence of a corresponding listing of humanitarian virtuous themes, suggesting the distinctive listing of classical Greek values as the most effective adjunct for designating such a humanitarian perspective. The respective listing of beauty, truth, and goodness represents one of philosophy’s most time-honored traditions: perpetuating the ethical focus of the virtuous mode, with the exception that the more enduring sense of value is now called into focus. It ultimately remained to the enduring genius of Plato to unite these concepts into a single cohesive context, much as previously had been achieved with respect to the cardinal virtues.

Although this cohesive grouping of beauty, truth, and goodness appears tailor-made for designating the first three dimensions predicted for this humanitarian perspective, it still remains one term short of satisfying the full quartet predicted in the preceding diagram. This shortfall is fortunately remedied through the addition of the enduring theme of wisdom. Due to its superficial resemblance to prudence, wisdom consistently appears to have been overlooked in the traditional listing of classical Greek values. In particular, wisdom directly suggests more of a humanitarian focus, in contrast to the more elementary group focus of prudence. Plato’s great disdain for the clever Sophists (or paid philosophers) of his day chiefly appears to have contributed to the omission of wisdom in his traditional canon of classical Greek values. Indeed, Plato appears to suggest precisely such a distinction: distinguishing between the wisdom of the social environment and that of the philosopher in his stoic pursuit of the truth. Plato’s student, Aristotle proposed an even sharper distinction in meaning. Here, practical wisdom (prudence) is most closely associated with social matters, whereas speculative wisdom (sophia) pursues truth for its own sake: namely, the universal philosophical principles underlying all human experience. In affirmation of these historical perspectives, only the latter humanitarian aspect of wisdom effective rounds-out the respective listing of classical Greek values.

In addition to the preceding more restricted style of timeless humanitarian perspective on wisdom, an even greater potential exists for research development concerning the more conventional epistemological connotation of wisdom in general; namely, that catchall category that assumes the skillful employment of knowledge in general. In this latter sense, the master ten-part hierarchy of the major virtues and values corresponds to an ultimate system of wisdom for the ages. This aspect is highly reminiscent of the seminal concept of the Perennial Philosophy, an eclectic system of thought that appropriates the best philosophical constructs from all of the major philosophical schools down through the ages. The current author proposes that the newly proposed ten-part hierarchy of the major virtues and values qualifies as the most radically complete Perennial Philosophy yet to be devised, whereby incorporating and unifying a grand number of philosophical themes developed throughout the ages. Indeed, each level within the master virtuous hierarchy is associated with its own unique primary philosophical theme. For the sequence of authority roles this corresponds to the ascending sequence of individualism, personalism, romanticism, ecumenism, and humanism. For the corresponding follower roles, the parallel sequence of: pragmatism, utilitarianism, ecclesiasticism, eclecticism, and mysticism is proposed. Therefore, the individual grouping of the cardinal virtues is overarched by the respective theme of utilitarianism, whereas the theological virtues correspond to the theme of ecclesiasticism, and so forth proceeding on up the gradient. This intriguing type of tandem arrangement between the individual groupings of virtues and their general unifying themes expands this eclectic style of perennial perspective on the overall theme of wisdom to its fullest epistemological sense. As such, it ushers in an exciting new intellectual domain that is rife with possibilities for significant new research.

Detailed Proposal

This specific and generalized perspective on wisdom serves as the foundation for the major focus; namely, applications to wisdom research extending into the realm of information technology. In particular, an ethical simulation of the virtues/values (including wisdom) is simulated in the context of an artificially intelligent agent. The current grant applicant is well positioned to propose this innovation, having been granted a series of to U.S. patents for ethical artificial intelligence. These patents extend to cover not only the traditional listings of virtues and values, but also the overarching sequences of general unifying themes (as previously described in the context of the Perennial Philosophy). This facility for programming and simulating the communicational factors underlying the virtues and values in a computer readable medium is chiefly made possible through the patented innovation of what are termed the schematic definitions for the virtuous realm. Eight pages of major virtues are contained within patent one, and eight pages of lesser virtues within patent two: combining together to permit a simulation of the warmer side to human virtuous communication. These two patents actually comprise roughly 150 pages of tabulated schematic definitions that also extend to the contrasting realm of the vices of defect, the vices of excess, etc. These alternate aspects will not be targeted in the current grant application, however, as it should prove daunting enough to simulate the dynamics of the virtuous mode (where most productive communication occurs). In conjunction with the schematic definitions, these two patents also provided a detailed technical flowchart schematic that demonstrates how the schematic definitions are programmed into the inference engine knowledge base. This is further processed through the aid of a master-control-unit expert system: enabling a convincing simulation of virtuous communication by the AI computer agent. This process completes an overall sequence spanning input-to-output parameters through recurrent system processing.

With respect to the schematic definitions, this crucial innovation spells out (in longhand) the precise location of each virtue or value within the linguistic matrix, while preserving the correct status of the respective authority and follower roles. Each definition is formally constructed along the lines of a two-stage sequential format; namely, (A) the formal recognition of the preliminary power maneuver, and (B) the current countermaneuver now being employed, and hence, labeled. This rather broad focus for general AI is necessarily narrowed down for the current grant application, whereby restricted to a more narrow virtuous focus. Here, the range of simulated responses would systematically be focused through the use of multiple-choice questions and drop down menus, whereby working to direct the dialogue towards virtuous issues.

Goals for project and beyond

Plans for the project follow closely to that outlined in the two U.S. patents for ethical artificial intelligence, although limited in scope to a simulation of the virtues and values. This represents just a first generation of what promises to be a more general-purpose version of artificial intelligence: potentially extending to roles of personal tutor, personal assistant, or master instructor within the educational field. Through subsequent generations of development, such an ethically based AI agent could potentially serve in virtually any application where sound human judgment is essential.

(THIS PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED FOR AN AWARD -- BUT IS PARTIALLY REPRODUCED HERE IN HOPES OF BEING OF AID TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO CONTINUE ONWARD)

Sincerely

John E. LaMuth M. S.

fax: 586-314-5960

Box 105

Lucerne Valley, CA 92356

http://www.charactervalues.com
http://www.charactervalues.org
http://www.charactervalues.net
http://www.ethicalvalues.com
http://www.ethicalvalues.info
http://www.emotionchip.net
http://www.global-solutions.org
http://www.world-peace.org
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html

A race between Technology and Wisdom

Douglas.Reay — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:29:52 GMT

Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun Microsystems, creator of the Java programming language) and Sir Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal, Master of Trinity and President of the Royal Society) have something in common. They are both worried that technological progress presents an increasing threat to the existance of humanity. It is a well observed trend that, as time goes on, technology has enabled smaller and smaller groups to kill more and more people. And, since it seems likely that technology will not only keep on progressing, but do so at an increasingly fast pace, unless something is done about the basic propensity for greedy, stupid, insane, frightened or pissed off people to want to blow each other up, time is running out for humanity (unless we colonise space or something equally unexpected).

It could be argued that doing something about that basic propensity is a question for education, pyschology, sociology or politics. However, perhaps wisdom (individual and collective) has a part to play too.

But here's my question. Have people (on average) become any wiser over the last 10 centuries? If so, what would the curve look like, when plotted against time, and how would that compare to the curve for our capacity per person to blow each other up?

Douglas

How do we develop Wisdom?

Quinnovate — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:10:30 GMT

What is wisdom, that we'd teach it? And if we know, how do we teach it? Sternberg's got a model, proposing layering on an explicit discussion of the wisdom of the decisions and models we encounter in our learning. Is that sufficient?

In a session I convened with people I consider wise, the answers ranged from 'models by good people' to 'wisdom can't be taught'. I believe it certainly can be fostered, and the world would be a better place if we did, so I keep looking...

Artificial Wisdom

Douglas.Reay — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:30:00 GMT

Computers are excellent at manipulating data.

They are reasonable at processing and displaying information, depending on format. Number are good. Text is ok. Sound and images are harder. Scent and touch are primitive.

Computers are limited at applying deduction and induction to a web of knowledge to produce more knowledge, but do it very well if the terms and limits are strictly defined such as when playing games like chess. The is the process anologous to thinking and intelligence.

Getting a computer to display anything resembling common sense is very difficult. We don't know how to get them to asorb, interpret and learn from experience in a flexible manner. Expert systems are generally limited in domain and the type of new thing they can learn.

Teaching a computer to learn to be wise (as opposed to regurgitating someone else's wisdom), especially in the sense of understanding and thinking about their own purpose in life, is something that not much work has been done on.

There's a lot of different opinions about whether a human equivalent computer based intelligence is possible, and what would happen if one were created. One theory says that a smart computer could design a next generation computer even smarter than itself and because the 'design - build - design' cycle in computing can be very short, such computers would very quickly grow beyond human control unless prevented. Debate goes on about whether humans could successfully restrict such a computer to an 'AI Jail' and if they could determine whether a computer that is smarter than them if lying or if it really is friendly towards them.

However, a core idea in that area is that intelligence helps improve intelligence. An intelligent being (whether human or computer) is more likely to be able to work out how to improve their own intelligence (or that of the next generation) than a less intelligent being would be.

My question is: Does the same apply to wisdom?

Do you think that a wise person is likely to be better at helping others gain wisdom than a fool? Or is the ability to aid others gain wisdom more controlled by some other factor (such as intelligence or ability at teaching) once a certain threshhold of wisdom is passed?

To put it another way; given a hypothetical computer being with a measure of both artifical intelligence and artificial wisdom, do you think such a being would be able to improve the wisdom of its next generation as much as it improved its intelligence, or would the intelligence outstrip the ability to control what is done with the power?

Douglas

Other discussion groups?

brendah — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:31:24 GMT

If you would like to see a new category of discussion forums, please post your suggestions here. Any other feedback in this regard are welcome.

Upcoming conferences and speakers on wisdom

brendah — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:07:39 GMT

Visit the News page for details on the following events:

AEPL's 2008 Summer Conference: Reclaiming the Wisdom Tradition for Education will be held on May 29 - June 1, 2008 in Monterey Bay, California.

James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds" will be the opening keynote speaker at ISTE's 29th annual National Educational Computing Conference on June 29 - July 2, 2008 in San Antonio, Texas.

Example (un)wise decision

andrewsw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:42:38 GMT

This is the forum for "Wise Decisions, Heuristics, and Leadership". As indicated in a different thread, it would be wise to post to this forum. However, as of yet there are few posts. If we try to convince people to post here, are we transferring wisdom? (Is wisdom a thing that can be transferred?) Or are we being wise (is wisdom merely the noun that denotes being the subject for a wise action?)? Or neither?

Is posting here merely because it is to one's advantage to do so necessarily wisdom? Or are there things which are wisdom which are not necessarily beneficial to the self? We evaluate heuristics based on their ability to approxiamate an idea - but if the ideal is not wise, is the heuristic still wise? Or are these different notions of wise which we ought to separate clearly for purposes of articulating what we mean?

I ask so that I might help facilitate a discussion, or perhaps merely a list, of how the participants in this forum understand what the word "wisdom" means to them. What does it mean to you?

Arete Initiative - Wisdom

Can Academic Blogging Advance Wisdom Research?

Can wisdom be taught with words?

How can wisdom research benefit from social neuroscience?

Computation and the Humanities

Ancient wisdom studies

What is wise technology?

Coevolution

Wisdom of Crowds

Wisdom, Wealth and Intelligence

Why call "Ecological Wisdom" wisdom?

Is there such a thing as organizational wisdom?

Who were the leaders of the past?

Wisdom in a University?

wisdom in religious and philosophical traditions

7 gifts of the Holy Spirit

The wisdom of posting to this forum

Wisdom-Based Epistemology Simulated Utilizing the Architecture of Ethical AI

A race between Technology and Wisdom

How do we develop Wisdom?

Artificial Wisdom

Related Post: Effortless effort and leadership

Other discussion groups?

Upcoming conferences and speakers on wisdom

Example (un)wise decision