Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Wisdom" in English language version.
Theoretical and empirical work on explicit psychological theories of wisdom can be roughly divided into three groups: (a) the conceptualization of wisdom as a personal characteristic or constellation of personality dispositions (e.g., Erikson, 1959; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998), (b) the conceptualization of wisdom in the neo-Piagetian tradition of postformal and dialectical thought (e.g., Alex ander & Langer, 1990; Labouvie-Vief, 1990), and (c) the conceptualization of wisdom as an expert system dealing with the meaning and conduct of life (P. Baltes & Smith, 1990; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Staudinger & Baltes, 1994).
Compromise [...] Intellectual humility [...] Recognition of uncertainty and change [...] Others' perspectives / broader contexts
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm [...] combines a broad definition of wisdom as excellence in mind and virtue with a specific characterization of wisdom as an expert knowledge system dealing with the conduct and understanding of life. We called this domain of knowledge the fundamental pragmatics of life [...] life planning [...] life management [...] and life review[.]
Since wisdom research in psychology began in the late 1970s (Clayton, 1975), many scientific theories about wisdom have emerged, including: (a) the Berlin wisdom paradigm (Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004; Baltes & Smith, 2008; Baltes & Staudinger, 1993, 2000; Scheibe et al., 2007), (b) the balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 1998, 2018), (c) the self-transcendence wisdom theory (Levenson et al., 2005), (d) the three-dimensional wisdom theory (Ardelt, 2003; Thomas et al., 2015), (e) the H.E.R.O.(E.) model of wisdom (Webster, 2003; Webster et al., 2014, 2017), (f) the process view of wisdom (Yang, 2008, 2013, 2016, 2017), and (g) the integrating virtue and wit theory of wisdom (Chen & Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2019, pp. 376–378; Wang & Zheng, 2012, 2014, 2015).
[R]eference to Athena within the context of mentoring is not new (Roberts, 2000; Sambunjak & Marusic, 2009) [...] Athena appears in the guise of an old friend of Odysseus, whose name happens to be Mentor. She offers aid and advice to the young Telemachus. [...] In relationship to Telemachus, Athena (as Mentor) supported him by recognizing and fostering courage, hope, sense, bravery, and adeptness (Homer, trans. 1996, p. 102).
[R]eference to Athena within the context of mentoring is not new (Roberts, 2000; Sambunjak & Marusic, 2009) [...] Athena appears in the guise of an old friend of Odysseus, whose name happens to be Mentor. She offers aid and advice to the young Telemachus. [...] In relationship to Telemachus, Athena (as Mentor) supported him by recognizing and fostering courage, hope, sense, bravery, and adeptness (Homer, trans. 1996, p. 102).
Theoretical and empirical work on explicit psychological theories of wisdom can be roughly divided into three groups: (a) the conceptualization of wisdom as a personal characteristic or constellation of personality dispositions (e.g., Erikson, 1959; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998), (b) the conceptualization of wisdom in the neo-Piagetian tradition of postformal and dialectical thought (e.g., Alex ander & Langer, 1990; Labouvie-Vief, 1990), and (c) the conceptualization of wisdom as an expert system dealing with the meaning and conduct of life (P. Baltes & Smith, 1990; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Staudinger & Baltes, 1994).
In the Garuda Purana 1.7.9, one of the manifestations of the energy of Sarasvati was medha (wisdom), an identification repeated with respect to the Goddess in the Devi Mahatmya 1.11. Thus it is no surprise to find with Anahita, in verse 86 of her Aban Yast, that 'the priests (athravans) who read and the pupils of the priest will beg of thee knowledge'.
The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm [...] combines a broad definition of wisdom as excellence in mind and virtue with a specific characterization of wisdom as an expert knowledge system dealing with the conduct and understanding of life. We called this domain of knowledge the fundamental pragmatics of life [...] life planning [...] life management [...] and life review[.]
Theoretical and empirical work on explicit psychological theories of wisdom can be roughly divided into three groups: (a) the conceptualization of wisdom as a personal characteristic or constellation of personality dispositions (e.g., Erikson, 1959; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998), (b) the conceptualization of wisdom in the neo-Piagetian tradition of postformal and dialectical thought (e.g., Alex ander & Langer, 1990; Labouvie-Vief, 1990), and (c) the conceptualization of wisdom as an expert system dealing with the meaning and conduct of life (P. Baltes & Smith, 1990; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Staudinger & Baltes, 1994).
Theoretical and empirical work on explicit psychological theories of wisdom can be roughly divided into three groups: (a) the conceptualization of wisdom as a personal characteristic or constellation of personality dispositions (e.g., Erikson, 1959; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998), (b) the conceptualization of wisdom in the neo-Piagetian tradition of postformal and dialectical thought (e.g., Alex ander & Langer, 1990; Labouvie-Vief, 1990), and (c) the conceptualization of wisdom as an expert system dealing with the meaning and conduct of life (P. Baltes & Smith, 1990; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Staudinger & Baltes, 1994).
Compromise [...] Intellectual humility [...] Recognition of uncertainty and change [...] Others' perspectives / broader contexts
The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm [...] combines a broad definition of wisdom as excellence in mind and virtue with a specific characterization of wisdom as an expert knowledge system dealing with the conduct and understanding of life. We called this domain of knowledge the fundamental pragmatics of life [...] life planning [...] life management [...] and life review[.]
Since wisdom research in psychology began in the late 1970s (Clayton, 1975), many scientific theories about wisdom have emerged, including: (a) the Berlin wisdom paradigm (Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004; Baltes & Smith, 2008; Baltes & Staudinger, 1993, 2000; Scheibe et al., 2007), (b) the balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 1998, 2018), (c) the self-transcendence wisdom theory (Levenson et al., 2005), (d) the three-dimensional wisdom theory (Ardelt, 2003; Thomas et al., 2015), (e) the H.E.R.O.(E.) model of wisdom (Webster, 2003; Webster et al., 2014, 2017), (f) the process view of wisdom (Yang, 2008, 2013, 2016, 2017), and (g) the integrating virtue and wit theory of wisdom (Chen & Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2019, pp. 376–378; Wang & Zheng, 2012, 2014, 2015).
Since wisdom research in psychology began in the late 1970s (Clayton, 1975), many scientific theories about wisdom have emerged, including: (a) the Berlin wisdom paradigm (Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004; Baltes & Smith, 2008; Baltes & Staudinger, 1993, 2000; Scheibe et al., 2007), (b) the balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 1998, 2018), (c) the self-transcendence wisdom theory (Levenson et al., 2005), (d) the three-dimensional wisdom theory (Ardelt, 2003; Thomas et al., 2015), (e) the H.E.R.O.(E.) model of wisdom (Webster, 2003; Webster et al., 2014, 2017), (f) the process view of wisdom (Yang, 2008, 2013, 2016, 2017), and (g) the integrating virtue and wit theory of wisdom (Chen & Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2019, pp. 376–378; Wang & Zheng, 2012, 2014, 2015).
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)Compromise [...] Intellectual humility [...] Recognition of uncertainty and change [...] Others' perspectives / broader contexts
Compromise [...] Intellectual humility [...] Recognition of uncertainty and change [...] Others' perspectives / broader contexts
an association of people sympathetic to the idea that academic inquiry should help humanity acquire more wisdom by rational means