How does Jeste & Lee 's model of wisdom relate to other definitions of wisdom ?

'Understanding Wisdom' Series

In my two previous articles, I first gave a summary of the 2019 research paper by Dilip V. Jeste and Ellen E. Lee titled The Emerging Empirical Science of Wisdom: Definition, Measurement, Neurobiology, Longevity, and Interventions . And I then reviewed the similarities and differences between spirituality and wisdom and the reasons why these authors justify including spirituality as a component of wisdom .

As highlighted earlier, Jeste and Lee offer a multidimensional definition of wisdom, integrating components such as social decision-making, emotional regulation, prosocial behaviors, self-reflection, acceptance of uncertainty, decisiveness, and spirituality. Their approach aligns with several other research-based definitions of wisdom, while also introducing specific nuances that contribute to the growing empirical understanding of wisdom. In this post, I propose to explore of how this definition relates to other research-based definitions, its potential limitations, and its added value for the field of wisdom research.

How it relates with other wisdom definitions

Jeste and Lee’s definition of wisdom as a multidimensional trait echoes the consensus in the field that wisdom is not a singular quality but comprises various interconnected elements. For example, Paul Baltes and Ursula Staudinger proposed the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, defining wisdom as a rare form of expert knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life. Their five criteria of wisdom include rich factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, lifespan contextualism, value relativism, and uncertainty management. Like Jeste and Lee, Baltes and Staudinger emphasize decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and adaptability, core components in both models. Similarly, Monika Ardelt’s Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS) views wisdom as comprising cognitive, reflective, and affective dimensions, which overlap with Jeste and Lee’s components like self-reflection, emotional regulation, and prosocial behaviors.

Emotional regulation and prosocial behaviors, such as empathy and compassion, are central to both Jeste and Lee’s model and other influential theories. Sternberg’s Balance Theory of Wisdom describes wisdom as achieving a balance of interests (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal) for the common good, often requiring empathy and emotion regulation—elements shared with Jeste and Lee's model. Similarly, Clayton and Birren also recognized affective components of wisdom, such as empathy and peacefulness, aligning with Jeste and Lee’s prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation.

Both Jeste and Lee and other prominent wisdom researchers emphasize the role of uncertainty in wisdom. Wisdom often requires managing ambiguity, being comfortable with the unknown, and making decisions in the face of incomplete information. Baltes' lifespan contextualism also recognizes the dynamic and changing nature of life, where uncertainty is an inevitable factor, and wise individuals must navigate this with maturity and patience.

Many wisdom researchers, including Erik Erikson and Paul Baltes, view wisdom as a developmental process that often increases with age. Jeste and Lee similarly argue that wisdom develops over time, often peaking in older age, with components like emotional regulation, acceptance of uncertainty, and prosocial behaviors becoming more refined with life experience.

Potential limitations of this model

While Jeste and Lee provide a comprehensive and empirically grounded definition of wisdom, their model is not without limitations. One potential limitation is their focus on neurobiological correlates of wisdom. While the exploration of the brain's role in wisdom is a valuable addition to the field, the complexity of wisdom as a human trait may be difficult to fully explain through biological models. Wisdom, as a largely abstract and subjective construct, might not map neatly onto specific neuroanatomical regions, and reducing it to brain function could oversimplify its richness.

Their model could also benefit from more consideration of cultural diversity in the conceptualization of wisdom. While they acknowledge the importance of different value systems, their definition is primarily based on Western frameworks of psychology and neuroscience. The importance of wisdom in non-Western contexts, where values such as spirituality, community orientation, and humility may play a more central role, is not fully explored in their article. For example, Takahashi and Overton emphasize that wisdom must be understood within specific cultural contexts and cannot be fully captured by a single definition.

While Jeste and Lee include spirituality as a component of wisdom, the measurement of spirituality can be complex and subjective. Spirituality is highly personal and can vary widely between individuals and cultures, making it challenging to quantify within an empirical framework. Their model may face difficulties when it comes to integrating spirituality into a cohesive measurement tool that captures its essence across different populations.

Although Jeste and Lee argue that wisdom increases with age, much of the evidence they present is based on cross-sectional studies. Longitudinal studies would be needed to establish stronger causal relationships between aging and the development of wisdom. Without such evidence, their claims about wisdom's increase over the lifespan remain speculative.

The value of this model for the science of wisdom

Despite these limitations, Jeste and Lee’s article adds significant value to the emerging empirical science of wisdom in several ways. One of the most novel contributions of their work is the focus on the neurobiology of wisdom. They propose a model of wisdom that involves specific brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the limbic system, suggesting that these areas are responsible for social decision-making, emotional regulation, and prosocial behaviors. This approach offers a new perspective on wisdom, linking it to brain structure and function, which opens up avenues for research into how brain health impacts wisdom, particularly in aging populations.

Their integration of neuroscience into wisdom research is a unique contribution that could potentially lead to the development of biomarkers for wisdom, offering new ways to assess and intervene in the cultivation of wisdom. Jeste and Lee’s neurobiological approach complements existing psychological theories, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of wisdom.

By including spirituality as a core component of wisdom, Jeste and Lee expand the scope of empirical wisdom research. Spirituality, though difficult to measure, has long been associated with wisdom in philosophical and religious traditions. Their model attempts to bridge this gap between ancient wisdom literature and modern scientific inquiry, offering a more holistic understanding of wisdom that includes both material and transcendental aspects of human experience. This inclusion is particularly important because it acknowledges that wisdom is not merely a cognitive or social trait but also involves deeper existential concerns. By bringing spirituality into the empirical fold, Jeste and Lee highlight the need for wisdom research to address the full spectrum of human experience, including the pursuit of meaning and purpose.

Jeste and Lee emphasize the potential for interventions to enhance wisdom, which is a relatively new and valuable direction for the field. They argue that wisdom is not fixed but can be developed through behavioral and cognitive interventions. This approach aligns with broader trends in psychology and neuroscience, which increasingly recognize the brain's plasticity and the possibility of enhancing traits like empathy, emotional regulation, and prosocial behavior through targeted interventions.

Their review of existing wisdom-related interventions, such as life review therapy, mindfulness practices, and empathy training, provides a practical foundation for future research. By focusing on ways to increase wisdom, Jeste and Lee offer a hopeful and actionable vision for wisdom research, with potential applications in mental health, aging, and education.

The authors’ connection between wisdom and aging adds an important dimension to the field. They explore how wisdom might increase with age and play a crucial role in maintaining well-being in older adults. Their discussion of the “Grandma Hypothesis,” which posits that post-reproductive adults contribute to the survival of their offspring by offering wisdom and care, ties wisdom into evolutionary biology. This connection between wisdom, aging, and evolutionary theory could lead to new research on how wisdom contributes to the health and longevity of individuals and societies.

Jeste and Lee’s definition of wisdom, while sharing many similarities with other research-based definitions, offers a unique contribution to the field by integrating neurobiological, spiritual, and developmental components. Their work highlights the complexity of wisdom as a trait that spans cognition, emotion, and prosocial behavior, and it provides new directions for empirical research by emphasizing the role of brain function and the potential for interventions.

While their focus on neurobiology and spirituality introduces new challenges in terms of measurement and cultural variability, the added value of their approach lies in its holistic and interdisciplinary nature. By bridging ancient wisdom traditions with modern neuroscience, Jeste and Lee contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of wisdom, with significant implications for individual well-being and societal flourishing.