Mom & Me Five Archive

...yesterday's edition of The New York Times Magazine and discovering the article on wisdom and The Wisdom Scorecard, I haven't been able to get the subject of wisdom, partially as it pertains to Mom's and my scores on the test, out of my thoughts.
    This morning at 0200 my mother awoke me as she stood over my bed like her own specter, breathing heavily, not a "wise" action for her to take. Aside from scaring the bejesus out of me and worrying me, then insisting, during a half-hour argument which I, admittedly, initiated and fueled, that I had told her to awaken me at 0200, I couldn't get back to sleep, even though I was due to arise at 0630 in order to prepare to do some early morning business. The primary reason I couldn't resettle myself in bed was because my mother had awakened me from a vivid dream in which she and I were squaring off on the definition of wisdom on a proscenium in front of an audience of academicians. This was a dream, so any semblance to reality ends here. Our discussion, of which only wisps remain in my memory, involved us bringing a variety of ridiculous images to bear on behalf of our separate arguments, images which immediately materialized. I remember two of these: Butterflies, the mention of which invoked hordes of glittering indigo butterflies drifting through the theater; the other was the mention of patterns of silverware, upon which members of the audience hoisted and waved silver utensils which displayed each member's preferred pattern. My mother mentioned the butterflies. I mentioned the silverware and argued for the proposition that the pattern "Florentine" best exemplified the definition of wisdom. Don't ask, please.
    In the fading wake of this perplexing dream, I decided to head out to the living room, fire up the computer and reread both the article on wisdom and my posts [here and here] about Mom's and my experience with the test. Two and a half hours later, it occurred to me that the test composer, Dr. Monika Ardelt, might find our results interesting. I composed an email that sketched my mother's and my situation and cued Dr. Ardelt to my two posts of yesterday. I mentioned the disconnect between my perception of my mother's and my own wisdom and the test's scoring. I then said, in part, that "in contrast to the [NYT] article, our results seem to shed somewhat more light on the existence of observable wisdom in the lightly demented elderly, at least, and might further elucidate the definition of wisdom in those of advanced age."
    To my surprised delight, she responded to my email. I found what she wrote so interesting that I thought some of my readers might also appreciate it. I asked Dr. Ardelt for permission to quote in my journal the following three paragraphs from her email, to which she graciously assented [Please Take Note:  Her correspondence is automatically copyrighted under her name as of today's date. If you wish to repeat what she's written, please seek permission from her through her email address listed at the link above attached to her name.]:

    About the wisdom test: First, the test is not copyrighted, but the NYT probably wanted to make sure that it could not be copied. I did not ask for this. In fact, the test is published in one of my articles on the “Empirical Assessment of a Three-dimensional Wisdom Scale,” which can be downloaded from my web page [at this address; it's the fifth bullet down under Selected Publications; in addition, you might want to take note of her other articles, all of which have intriguing titles.].
    Second, the test works better in the aggregate than as a test for an individual wisdom score. Yes, "misdiagnoses" in wisdom will occur, particularly if people answer according to social desirability, which your mother apparently did not, itself a sign of wisdom. Because of the social desirability bias, I never tell my respondents that this test measures "wisdom."
    Is your mother wiser than you, although the test told you that you are wiser than her? I do not know. This depends in part on the "honesty" of your answers (not that I doubt your honesty, but it is quite easy to paint a more ideal image of ourselves than we really are) and in part on the definition and measurement of wisdom. I am the first to admit that my measurement of wisdom is not perfect, but it works quite well in the aggregate and it helps me to identify people relatively high and relatively low on wisdom.

    Her explanation that the test "works better in the aggregate" certainly makes sense and was welcome news, since the wisdom article in NYT didn't make this clear; it insinuated, instead, that the test was designed to court the individual over the group. I think it's important, too, to take special note of Dr. Ardelt's statement: "Because of the social desirability bias, I never tell my respondents that this test measures 'wisdom.'" In opposition to this, NYT introduced the test as an invitation to score one's individual wisdom quotient, clearly not the original intent of the test. Regarding "social desirability": Because I took pains to mention in my second post the process to which my brain was probably subject the second time I took the test, I was amused at her discussion of honest answering. My brain is particularly adept at flattering me as its host and continues to go to great lengths to do this. At this time in my life I'm not concerned with reining it in...an indication, I think, of at least one area in which my mother's wisdom outstrips my own.
    If you've taken the test and find it at all intriguing, even negatively intriguing, I urge you to read the paper Dr. Ardelt published on the test, mentioned in her quote above. As you read it you will discover that the New York Times Magazine article on science's attempts to qualify and quantify wisdom compares to Dr. Ardelt's paper as a comic book version of Moby Dick would compare to the original. Dr. Ardelt's article describes, in detail, the pursuit that led to the test and the history of the development of the test. Along the way are many thought provoking paragraphs about psycho-science's attempts to pre-define wisdom in order to understand exactly that which it is seeking and why the search was initiated. Although not specifically addressed in the paper, it's a good idea to keep in mind that this particular search for wisdom focuses on its applicability to human psychology, not cyber-psychology, although, as I read, I wondered if it could have cross-applicability.
    The article is loaded with quotes, observations and descriptions that, if closely attended, can whirl you round and round in an exhilarating, contemplative dance of wisdom-wondering. In the depths of the article, I suddenly developed sympathy for Vivian Clayton's final decision to abandon the study of wisdom, despite her clear knack for it.
    The test is presented in a format that further documents a lot about how it was developed. Within the article, scoring is explained. Its various stages of usefulness are delineated. Finally, if you took the test and found yourself scoffing at it, your scoffing is probably addressed within the article. Reading the article is rather like following a topographical map of psycho-science seeking its Holy Grail.
    If you find yourself wanting to contact Dr. Ardelt, she has asked me to note that she will be unavailable through her email address at her linked page, above, from May 9 - May 20, so responses will not be immediate
    I just ushered my mother to bed. I kidded her about her determination to awaken me long before dawn this morning and added, "I'm telling you now, Mom, tomorrow morning I do not want you to awaken me at 0200. Remember this, please: If you awaken at 0200 and have an unbearable urge to awaken me, I did not ask you to do this and you do so at your own peril!"
    My mother grinned. "Well, then," she responded, "how about 0300?"
    Wise of her to ask.
    Later.