THE EXAMINED LIFE: RELATIONS AMONG LIFE EXPERIENCE, SELF-REFLECTION, AND WISDOM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium brings together researchers from Austria, Canada, and the United States reporting their most recent findings in the growing field of wisdom psychology. For a long time, the definition and the best measurement approach for wisdom were the main issues in the field. While these issues are still under debate, the papers presented here open up several new directions of inquiry. The first two presentations concern experiential factors that may influence the development of wisdom. Nusbaum, Williams, and Hoeckner report associations between years of practice in various activities -from meditation to ballet -and wisdom. Weststrate, Glck, Ferrari, and Fournier present research suggesting that wisdom develops through the experience of momentous life events in combination with certain ways of self-reflection about these experiences. Both papers have important implications for our understanding of the internal and external factors that cause some people, but not others, to grow towards wisdom. The third talk by Grossmann, Sahdra, and Ciarrochi investigates the role of physiological functioning. They found wise reasoning to be linked to cardiac vagal tone, but only when participants are instructed to take a self-distanced perspective. The last talk by Glck, Knig, Naschenweng, Redzanowski, Dorner-Hrig, and Strasser discusses situational fluctuations in wisdom and reports low correlations between the wisdom levels in the context of two different life-event narratives. Susan Bluck discusses the implications of these new findings within and beyond wisdom research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".