Wisdom in time: Advancing dynamic models of wisdom, intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and perspective-taking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic theories of wisdom emphasise that metacognitive attributes—intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and perspective-taking—evolve through life’s challenges and are crucial for individual and societal well-being. These attributes help mitigate issues like misinformation, polarization, and societal acrimony. Reviewing prominent wisdom models, we highlight context-dependent variations in these attributes, with implications for measurement practices. We posit that the temporal dimension—central to wisdom theories—is neglected or misinterpreted in empirical studies. A systematic literature review demonstrates many conclusions about developing wisdom or its downstream effects are based on cross-sectional, atemporal data. In response, we advocate for greater focus on the temporal bounds of empirical data in social psychology and offer tutorial-style recommendations for formalising narrative theories to explicitly specify one’s level of analysis. Beyond wisdom, we illustrate similar temporal oversights across clinical, social, and cultural domains. Our recommendations offer a generalizable framework to advance dynamic research practices critical for understanding psychological change.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".