MANIFESTATIONS OF WISDOM IN REAL-LIFE EXPERIENCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 30 years, the scientific study of wisdom has flourished. Significant advancements have been made in terms of the definition and measurement of wisdom. Less work, however, has examined how wisdom manifests in, and develops from, real-life experiences. This is a noteworthy gap in the literature, given that wisdom is a highly contextual phenomenon that is intimately connected to real-life situations, such as the management of difficult life events. This symposium examines wisdom in relation to real-life experiences using a diverse range of ecologically rich methodologies that draw on research from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. These studies define real-life experience in a variety of ways, ranging from relatively mundane daily hassles to momentous and life-changing events. Using a daily-diary methodology, Beichler and Glück report on how wise and less wise individuals experience everyday hassles and uplifts, with a focus on individuals’ emotional appraisals of these relatively common events. At the level of momentous life experiences, two presentations address the role of wisdom in positive and negative relationship experiences. Farjam, Asadi, and Abadi present on differences in wisdom across groups of divorced and non-divorced women. Auer-Spath and Glück report on the role of wisdom and wisdom-related resources (e.g., empathy), in shaping people’s views of the “good marriage” and their relationship satisfaction. Finally, Weststrate, Ferrari, and Fournier present on event content and self-reflective processing in midlife adults’ autobiographical memories of wisdom-fostering life experiences. Carolyn Aldwin will discuss these presentations in relation to the broader science of wisdom and optimal development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".