Those folk you think are thick. They're probably wiser than you.

It seems - albeit a little tentatively - that people from 'lower social classes' are, in some contexts, wider than us clever folk with higher degrees:

The answer is that raw intelligence doesn’t reduce conflict, he asserts. Wisdom does. Such wisdom—in effect, the ability to take the perspectives of others into account and aim for compromise—comes much more naturally to those who grow up poor or working class, according to a new study by Grossman and colleagues.

Now, while I appreciate that a visit to Keighley on a Saturday night might present a different view on the working class and conflict, the findings here are really rather interesting:

We propose that class is inversely related to a propensity for using wise reasoning (recognizing limits of their knowledge, consider world in flux and change, acknowledges and integrate different perspectives) in interpersonal situations, contrary to established class advantage in abstract cognition. Two studies—an online survey from regions differing in economic affluence (n = 2 145) and a representative in-lab study with stratified sampling of adults from working and middle-class backgrounds (n = 299)—tested this proposition, indicating that higher social class consistently related to lower levels of wise reasoning across different levels of analysis, including regional and individual differences, and subjective construal of specific situations.

I'm struck by the bounds of this wisdom measure - knowing limits to knowledge, acknowledging change and different perspectives - because they present a very different approach to how people might assess a situation or a decision from the preferred and purely reason-based approach of the intellectual. Us clever folk tend to presume that, because we know a lot about one thing and have letters after our names, we are better able to see to the right choice - we fail to do what the wise person does and recognise that our knowledge is limited. Moreover, clever folk nearly always (witness the typical approach to economic modelling) start from an assumption of a stable status quo - wise folk know change is constant. And, because we're clever, us folk assume that we are right and that your opinion (unless it starts from recognising I am right) is of no consequence or worse still, just plain wrong - wisdom (and a peek at history) should tell us that other perspectives are helpful not a challenge to our intellectual prowess.

So next time some intellectual giant puts you down as thick, take a minute to respond that you may not have that book learning but you've a perspective, some limited knowledge and recognise that things seldom stay unchanged. Oh, and that this makes you wise - so listen up, clever folk, hark to the wisdom of ordinary folk.

....

On wisdom...

Over at Living with Rats, Julian Dobson speculates on building what he terms “the wisdom economy.” I pondered on whether to indulge in my usual response to Julian’s stuff – to try and tear it to shred’s from the perspective of what I might call “real liberalism”.

However, I was rather more struck by the balance between knowledge and wisdom – a balance I have commented on before and which players of Dungeons & Dragons will appreciate better than most – as you’ll read here where this trite little distinction is sourced!

"Intelligence tells you what the problem is and how to solve it, wisdom tells you whether or not you should."

I’m not sure this takes us much further forward. But is does perhaps set wisdom somewhere else than knowledge. Here’s Bruce Lloyd saying much the same thing in management speak:

“In essence, Wisdom is the vehicle we use for integrating our values into our decision-making processes. It is one thing to turn information into knowledge that makes things happen, but it is quite another thing to make the ‘right’ (/’good’/’better’) things happen. How we actually use knowledge depends on our values. Instead of moving up from knowledge to Wisdom, we actually move down from Wisdom to knowledge -- and that is how we incorporate our values into our knowledge based decision-making, as well as see the application and relevance of what we generally call Wisdom.”

So, as we might expect, “wisdom” is about the application of values. But whose values? My values – of free choice, liberty, independence and self-reliance – can respond to wise application just as easily as can the so-called progressive values of no growth, collectivism and the superiority of the group. And the authoritarian too can apply his values in just the same manner and just as wisely.

Now in all this there is an assumption that wisdom is superior to knowledge – and it leads inevitably to the “I am wise, I know best” position (as K Sridevi rather raspingly points out here):

“One can understand the progression from storytelling to leadership to wisdom. Both storytelling and leadership, in different ways, depend on "the willing suspension of disbelief". The storyteller asks his audience, "trust me, follow me, even when my story seems to defy the way everyday life works". The leader asks her people, "trust me, follow me, even when the path looks difficult and against your immediate interest". And the idea of wisdom management does seem to have that "trust me, I know best, you're not really qualified to question me" character to it. "Wisdom" is sufficiently imprecise to make its possession effectively unverifiable in a general objective way, and sufficiently confusable with charisma to make its claims believable at least by some.”

So while the “knowledge economy” is defined by what we know, the “wisdom economy” does not have these bounds. It is defined only by the wise – and who decides who is wise or what is wisdom? In truth, we already have that “wisdom economy” since wise men have acted according to their values – and those values are the values of our societies.

Another way of seeing wisdom is as the exercise of “judgement”. We are back with phronesis – with Aristotle’s practical wisdom. And again this takes us through a process of firstly understanding good and bad (what Aristotle calls the “conditions for human flourishing”), the ability to consider what is required in such a context, to deliberate on that consideration and to act accordingly. We are where we started with the vexed issue of values – so long as I apply what I consider to be the “conditions for human flourishing” and do so with consideration, deliberation and follow through with action, so long as I do this I am acting with wisdom.

The idea of the “knowledge economy” was a recognition of the added value that derived from greater knowledge – this economy was less resource intensive, more culturally varied and more personally satisfying. It was about real economics. Sadly, the idea of the “wisdom economy” is just words – all successful economies and polities rely on the application of wisdom. Taking society’s values and applying them to decision-making, management and administration - that is wisdom.

....