Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35153458›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2022

Wisdom: Meaning, structure, types, arguments, and future concerns.

Kaili Zhang, Juan Shi, Fengyan Wang, Michel Ferrari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kaili Zhang *Institute of Moral Education Research & School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, No. 122 Ninghai Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210097 People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5375-4098
Juan Shi *Institute of Moral Education Research & School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, No. 122 Ninghai Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210097 People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6445-0308
Fengyan WangDepartment of Applied Psychology & Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2167-6830
Michel FerrariDepartment of Applied Psychology & Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6 Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Narrowing the debate about the meaning of wisdom requires two different understandings of wisdom. (a) As action or behaviour, wisdom refers to well-motivated actors achieving an altruistic outcome by creatively and successfully solving problems. (b) As a psychological trait, wisdom refers to a global psychological quality that engages intellectual ability, prior knowledge and experience in a way that integrates virtue and wit, and is acquired through life experience and continued practice. Thus, we propose a two-dimensional theory of wisdom that integrates virtue and wit. Wisdom can be further divided into "humane wisdom" and "natural wisdom" according to the types of capability required. At the same time, we propose that wisdom classification should integrate the views of Sternberg and Wang and be divided into three types: domain-specific wisdom, domain-general wisdom, and omniscient/ overall wisdom. We then discuss three pressing questions about wisdom, and consider five issues important to the future of wisdom research in psychology.

Indexed as

Artificial wisdomHumane wisdomNatural wisdomStructureWisdom

Identifiers

PMID35153458
PMCPMC8817649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.