Modern studies of wisdom in Russian, Western and Eastern psychology
Abstract
Abstract
The article presents a brief overview of publications devoted to understanding the phenomenon of wisdom in Western and Eastern cultures, as well as in Russia. An analysis of modern works demonstrates what is common and what is different in views on this phenomenon. We show that the ideas about wisdom in Russia combine the features of both approaches but are not limited to them. For Russian respondents, the time axis is also important – wisdom is passed from ancestors to descendants, and at the same time allows you to see the prospects for the development of events.
Discussion
Wisdom has long been the object of close attention of philosophers, writers, poets and even artists, but psychology turned to this topic relatively recently – the first empirical studies of wisdom appeared only at the end of the 20th century. However, it should be noted that the basic problem has not yet been solved – we still cannot give the definition of this phenomenon that satisfies all researchers. As L.I. Antzyferova, “wisdom is very difficult to define, but meanwhile ordinary people easily recognize a wise person by some signs they are not clearly aware of” (Antzyferova, 2006, p. 395).
In the search for a definition, we started with the works of philosophers who have been discussing the topic of wisdom for several millenniums. The Philosophical Encyclopedia describes wisdom as “the highest, holistic, spiritual and practical knowledge focused on comprehending the absolute meaning of being” (New Philosophical Encyclopedia, 2001). To illustrate this definition the authors of the encyclopedia select a phrase of one of the greatest wise men L.N. Tolstoy that is correlated with such an understanding: wisdom is “knowledge of eternal truths applicable to life”, that is, the cognitive component of wisdom is put in the 1st place. But in a letter to R. Rolland on October 3-4, 1887, L.N. Tolstoy makes a completely different emphasis: “Human wisdom does not consist in the knowledge of things … Wisdom does not consist in knowing as much as possible. Human wisdom is in the knowledge of the order in which it is useful to know things; it consists in the ability to distribute one’s knowledge according to the degree of its importance. Meanwhile, of all the sciences that a person can and should know, the most important is the science of how to live, doing as little evil as possible and as much good as possible” (Tolstoy, 1984, p. 22). Thus, from the very beginning it turns out that the understanding of wisdom, even by one person, is not unambiguous and not one-dimensional.
Turning to ancient philosophy – the ancestor of Western science, we see that this problem is not new. It would be wrong to use the single term “wisdom” in relation, for example, to the philosophical views of Plato or Aristotle, given that in antiquity there were as many as three concepts: Sophia (σοφία), Phronesis (φρόνησις) and Episteme (ἐπιστήμη), often translated in the same way in modern publications, but having significantly different shades of meaning. R. Trowbridge (Trowbridge, 2011) points out that for Aristotle, Sophia is synonymous with the search for the highest truth, and Phronesis refers more to the practical side of life, to finding the best ways to solve a problem. At the same time, Episteme can be compared with scientific knowledge, which Plato contrasts with ordinary knowledge (Banicki, 2009).
In the English-language psychological literature of 20 century there is also an ambiguity in the understanding of wisdom. The Oxford Dictionary defines wisdom as “good judgement and advice in difficult and uncertain matters of life”, but for G. Stanley Hall, wisdom is associated with philosophical calmness, impartiality, and high morality (quoted from Staudinger, 2008).
A review of modern psychological publications also demonstrates an intersection with philosophical approaches. In its most general form, wisdom in most writings seems to be placed in a space between three axes: (1) broad and deep knowledge in various fields and high intelligence, (2) the ability to successfully cope with practical tasks and problems based on a rich life experience and (3) virtue and spirituality, which is like the ancient Greek ideas about Episteme, Phronesis and Sophia.
In a study of lay ideas of Europeans about a wise person, similar three groups of recognized wise people were also identified: scientists-philosophers (Solomon, Socrates, Einstein), wise practitioners (Lincoln, Franklin, Churchill, Obama) and people aimed at the common good (Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela) (Weststrate, Ferrari, Ardelt, 2016).
The most up to date integrative model of “Western” wisdom is presented in the article by J. Gluck and N.M. Weststrate. This model integrates the existing ideas about the life situations that require wisdom and wise behaviors. Cognitive-focused, personality-focused and developmental models of wisdom are revised, and it is demonstrated that personal traits of respondents (exploratory orientation, concern for others and emotion regulation) moderate the effect of cognitive components (life- and self-knowledge, metacognitive capacities, and self-reflection) on wise behavior in real life situations (Gluck, Weststrate, 2022).
The new “common model” of wisdom proposed by K. Kristjansson and colleagues puts the stress to the Phronesis construct and explains how mature decision-making is motivated and shaped by moral aspirations and cognitively guided moral emotions (Kristjansson et al., 2021). From the point of view of the authors, Phronesis helps to solve the following tasks: (1) identify situations in which the manifestation of wisdom is necessary, (2) build a hierarchy of motives in case of conflict (for example, mercy versus justice), and (3) regulate emotions. The general function of phronesis can be summarized as enabling the individual to “thoroughly consider” the relative weight of competing values, actions, and emotions in the context of “what contributes to a good life in general”.
Considering philosophical and religious approaches to the understanding of wisdom in the history of their development, Roger Walsh (Walsh, 2011, 2015) shows that the differences between East and West are already manifested in writings dating back to ancient times. In the content of even such similar concepts as Sophia and Prajna or Phronesis and Upaya, ancient Greek and Buddhist authors put different accents. The author contrasts the “technophile” Western ideas of wisdom with the “timeless treasures” of Eastern religions.
Growing out of Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian and other religious practices, the understanding of wisdom in the East is associated with intuitive personal, often emotional experience, with processes of direct comprehension without explicit intellectualization. M. Takahashi and W.F. Overton point out that, for example, in modern Japanese there are even different terms that capture different aspects of wisdom: rikai, associated with the cognitive side, and hara (opening the insides to each other), which also includes the emotional experience of mutual understanding. An important consequence of the Eastern approach is the fundamental rejection of distinguishing the differentiated aspects of wisdom in favor of considering it as a reflective understanding based on a holistic cognitive, affective, intuitive, and social experience (Takahashi, Overton, 2005).
Comparing the ideas of wisdom in the West and in China, Zhen-Dong Wang and colleagues also note the emphasis on cognition in European culture and the idea of wisdom as a virtue in the East. And although most researchers around the world now agree on the necessity of “intelligence and virtue integration” to solve complex life problems, there are still significant cultural differences. Western authors concentrate on solving practical problems in the physical and social environment of a person, on resolving external conflicts. Chinese science is more interested in the spiritual problems of man, the possibilities of resolving contradictions within himself. Compared with the West, which is effective at using logical and analytical thinking and rational cognition, China is much better at using dialectical and holistic thinking and applying intuitive understanding.
Of course, the currently observed cultural differences in the understanding of wisdom have long historical roots. And it would be interesting to examine what place between the West and the East is occupied by the ideas of wisdom in Russian culture.
When comparing the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, and ancient Russian texts, K. Muzdybaev found that there are similarities and differences in the understanding of wisdom by representatives of these cultures.
For Sumerians wisdom is not to get involved in a quarrel, to fight a slanderer, to run a household where it is risky. Wisdom is not to deal with a mean person, it is reasonable not to get involved in a quarrel, it is right to avoid conflict. For quarrels, conflicts, wars tend to destroy, to chaos, and wisdom – to order, creation, unification. In the behavioral characteristics of their ideal of wisdom, there are two interrelated groups of indicators: (1) restraint, moderation, non-aggression, modesty, humility and (2) a balance of interests, positivity in relationships, solidarity, and cooperation.
In ancient Egypt, it was considered wise to follow two main rules: (1) to maintain agreement and solidarity, courtesy and positivity in relationships, as well as to maintain a balance of interests and (2) be modest, restraint, and moderate.
Analyzing the “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh, K. Muzdybaev notes that the Russian leader considers that wisdom includes the idea to strengthen the spirit of solidarity in his people, the desire for harmony, positivity in relationships, the manifestation of goodwill, and the balance of interests.
To sum up: “In the Sumerian civilization, more emphasis is placed on contextual knowledge and on the ability to think about, weigh the problem from all sides, that is, the cognitive characteristics of wisdom prevail … However, in the ancient Egyptian civilization, more attention is paid to the problem of understanding injustice and human dignity, as well as knowledge of life contexts and understanding of people… The model of wisdom in ancient Russian civilization could be called a unifying model, since it is aimed at creating a spirit of solidarity, cooperation, and harmony in society” (Muzdybaev, 2012, pp. 128-129).
The images of a wise person are diverse and depend upon culture too. In Russia, the word “wise” is associated more with reasonable government (for example, Yaroslav the Wise), or with the ability to see the truth and proximity to the foundations of the universe among the so-called folk sages or “prostetz (simple)” (Ivanov, 2017).
In European literature, the image of a wise person is also often ambiguous. For example, Merlin from medieval legends, Dr. Faust from I.V. Goethe, Gandalf at J.R. Tolkien, and Dumbledore at J.K. Rowling are people who solve the problems of good and evil, often wizards, and it’s not the coincidence that the words “wise” and “wizard” in English have the same root.
Comparing the content of the concepts of “wisdom” in Russian and in English, L.N. Goryanova shows that their primary perception is very close, it relates to the cognitive activity of a person: gaining knowledge about various phenomena of the surrounding world, a person thereby acquires wisdom. However, in the Russian conceptual picture of the world, wisdom is recognized, first of all, as a special trait of a person, in the English one, on the contrary, it is not so much the presence of this quality that is important, but its application in practice. For the Russian people, it is also typical to understand wisdom as universal knowledge that passes from one generation to another in the form of a heritage (Goryanova, 2012).
Wise man is close to the “Spiritual Man” with a kind heart, high levels of hardiness, meaningfulness of life, spiritual abilities, intelligence, and emotional stability. They can use their own resources and are able to withstand the influence of other people (Volkova, Kalugin, 2021).
In our study (Nikitina, 2021) the elderly respondents (65-92 years old) indicated the importance knowledge and life experience and said about their readiness to share with those who needed it, but only at the right time, they believe that it was more important not to insist on one’s own ideas, but “to lead the interlocutor to the right decision.”
Senior respondents also spoke about the need to assess the dynamics of the development of the situation, which correlates with the views of L.I. Antzyferova about wisdom as a “gift of foresight”.
A brief review of classical and contemporary publications on the understanding of the phenomenon of wisdom in different cultures demonstrates both common and different in Western and Eastern views on this phenomenon. At the same time, ideas about wisdom in Russia combine the features of both views but are not limited to them. For Russian respondents, the time axis is also important – wisdom is passed from ancestors to descendants, and at the same time allows you to see the prospects for the development of events or ideas.
References
- Antzyferova, L.I. (2006). Personal development and problems of gerontopsychology. Publishing House “Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, Moscow (in Russian). [Antzyferova, L.I. Razvitie lichnosti i problemy gerontopsihologii. M.: Izd-vo «Institut psihologii RAN», 2006].
- Glück, J., Weststrate, N.M. (2022). The Wisdom Researchers and the Elephant: An Integrative Model of Wise Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(4), 342-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221094650.
- Goryanova, L.N. (2012). Structures of the concepts MUDROST’ and WISDOM and ways of objectifying their features in the Russian and English language worldviews. Abstract diss. cand. philol. n., Kemerovo (in Russian). [Goryanova L.N. Struktury konceptov MUDROST’ i WISDOM i sposoby ob”ektivacii ih priznakov v russkoj i anglijskoj yazykovyh kartinah mira. Avtoref. diss. kand. filol. n. 2012, Kemerovo].
- Ivanov, N.N. (2017). Reception of the “folk sage” archetype in Russian literature. Upper Volga Philological Bulletin, 2, 17-20 (in Russian). [Ivanov, N.N. Recepciya arhetipa «narodnogo mudreca» v russkoj literature. Verhnevolzhskij filologicheskij vestnik, 2017, 2, 17-20].
- Kristjansson, K., Fowers, B., Darnell, C., Pollard, D. (2021). Phronesis (Practical Wisdom) as a Type of Contextual Integrative Thinking. Review of General Psychology, 25(3), 239-257. https://doi.org/ /10.1177/10892680211023063
- Mitina, E.V. The category of wisdom in ancient Russian religious consciousness: dis. … cand. philosophy Sciences: 09.00.13. Moscow, 2001. 149 p. (in Russian) [Mitina, E.V. Kategoriya mudrosti v drevnerusskom religioznom soznanii: dis. … kand. filos. nauk: 09.00.13. Moskva, 2001. 149 p.]
- Muzdybaev, K. (2012). The study of wisdom in the dead, ancient and modern civilizations. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 15(6), 113-130 (in Russian). [Muzdybaev, K. Issledovanie mudrosti v pogibshih, drevnih i sovremennyh civilizaciyah // Zhurnal sociologii i social’noj antropologii. 2012, 15 (6), 113-130].
- New Philosophical Encyclopedia (2001). “Mysl’”: Moscow. Ed. V.S. Styopin, (in Russian). [Novaya filosofskaya enciklopediya. M.: «Mysl’». Ed. V.S. Styopin, 2001].
- Nikitina, E.A. (2021). Modern research of wisdom: state and prospects. Psychological Journal, 42(2), 28-37 (in Russian). [Nikitina, E.A. Sovremennye issledovaniya mudrosti: sostoyanie i perspektivy. Psihologicheskij zhurnal, 2021, 42(2), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920014228-6
- Staudinger, U.M. (2008). A psychology of wisdom: History and recent developments. Research in Human Development, 5, 107-120.
- Takahashi M.; Overton W.F. (2005). Cultural Foundations of Wisdom. An Integrated Developmental Approach. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.) A handbook of wisdom. Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32 – 60.
- Tolstoy, L.N. (1984). Collected works. «Fiction literature», Moscow, vol. 18, p. 22 (in Russian). [Tolstoy, L.N. (1984). Sobraniye sochineniy. «Khudozhestvennaya literatura», Moskva, vyp. 18, s. 22.]
- Volkova, E.V. & Kalugin, A.Yu. (2021). Personality Types of Modern Russians: Myth or Reality? Natural Systems of Mind, 1, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.38098/nsom_2021_01_03_08
- Walsh, R. (2011). The varieties of wisdom: contemplative, cross-cultural, and integral contributions. Research in human development, 8 (2), 109 – 127.
- Walsh, R. (2015). What is wisdom? Cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary syntheses. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000045
- Wang, Zh.-D.; Wang, Y.-M.; Li, K.; Shi, J.; Wang F.-J. (2022). The comparison of the wisdom view in Chinese and Western cultures. Current Psychology, 41, 8032–8043. https://doi.org/1007/s12144-020-01226-w
Comments (0)
The article presents a brief overview of publications devoted to understanding the phenomenon of wisdom in Western and Eastern cultures, as well as in Russia. An analysis of modern works demonstrates what is common and what is different in views on this phenomenon. We show that the ideas about wisdom in Russia combine the features of both approaches but are not limited to them. For Russian respondents, the time axis is also important – wisdom is passed from ancestors to descendants, and at the same time allows you to see the prospects for the development of events.
Wisdom has long been the object of close attention of philosophers, writers, poets and even artists, but psychology turned to this topic relatively recently – the first empirical studies of wisdom appeared only at the end of the 20th century. However, it should be noted that the basic problem has not yet been solved – we still cannot give the definition of this phenomenon that satisfies all researchers. As L.I. Antzyferova, “wisdom is very difficult to define, but meanwhile ordinary people easily recognize a wise person by some signs they are not clearly aware of” (Antzyferova, 2006, p. 395).
In the search for a definition, we started with the works of philosophers who have been discussing the topic of wisdom for several millenniums. The Philosophical Encyclopedia describes wisdom as “the highest, holistic, spiritual and practical knowledge focused on comprehending the absolute meaning of being” (New Philosophical Encyclopedia, 2001). To illustrate this definition the authors of the encyclopedia select a phrase of one of the greatest wise men L.N. Tolstoy that is correlated with such an understanding: wisdom is “knowledge of eternal truths applicable to life”, that is, the cognitive component of wisdom is put in the 1st place. But in a letter to R. Rolland on October 3-4, 1887, L.N. Tolstoy makes a completely different emphasis: “Human wisdom does not consist in the knowledge of things … Wisdom does not consist in knowing as much as possible. Human wisdom is in the knowledge of the order in which it is useful to know things; it consists in the ability to distribute one’s knowledge according to the degree of its importance. Meanwhile, of all the sciences that a person can and should know, the most important is the science of how to live, doing as little evil as possible and as much good as possible” (Tolstoy, 1984, p. 22). Thus, from the very beginning it turns out that the understanding of wisdom, even by one person, is not unambiguous and not one-dimensional.
Turning to ancient philosophy – the ancestor of Western science, we see that this problem is not new. It would be wrong to use the single term “wisdom” in relation, for example, to the philosophical views of Plato or Aristotle, given that in antiquity there were as many as three concepts: Sophia (σοφία), Phronesis (φρόνησις) and Episteme (ἐπιστήμη), often translated in the same way in modern publications, but having significantly different shades of meaning. R. Trowbridge (Trowbridge, 2011) points out that for Aristotle, Sophia is synonymous with the search for the highest truth, and Phronesis refers more to the practical side of life, to finding the best ways to solve a problem. At the same time, Episteme can be compared with scientific knowledge, which Plato contrasts with ordinary knowledge (Banicki, 2009).
In the English-language psychological literature of 20 century there is also an ambiguity in the understanding of wisdom. The Oxford Dictionary defines wisdom as “good judgement and advice in difficult and uncertain matters of life”, but for G. Stanley Hall, wisdom is associated with philosophical calmness, impartiality, and high morality (quoted from Staudinger, 2008).
A review of modern psychological publications also demonstrates an intersection with philosophical approaches. In its most general form, wisdom in most writings seems to be placed in a space between three axes: (1) broad and deep knowledge in various fields and high intelligence, (2) the ability to successfully cope with practical tasks and problems based on a rich life experience and (3) virtue and spirituality, which is like the ancient Greek ideas about Episteme, Phronesis and Sophia.
In a study of lay ideas of Europeans about a wise person, similar three groups of recognized wise people were also identified: scientists-philosophers (Solomon, Socrates, Einstein), wise practitioners (Lincoln, Franklin, Churchill, Obama) and people aimed at the common good (Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela) (Weststrate, Ferrari, Ardelt, 2016).
The most up to date integrative model of “Western” wisdom is presented in the article by J. Gluck and N.M. Weststrate. This model integrates the existing ideas about the life situations that require wisdom and wise behaviors. Cognitive-focused, personality-focused and developmental models of wisdom are revised, and it is demonstrated that personal traits of respondents (exploratory orientation, concern for others and emotion regulation) moderate the effect of cognitive components (life- and self-knowledge, metacognitive capacities, and self-reflection) on wise behavior in real life situations (Gluck, Weststrate, 2022).
The new “common model” of wisdom proposed by K. Kristjansson and colleagues puts the stress to the Phronesis construct and explains how mature decision-making is motivated and shaped by moral aspirations and cognitively guided moral emotions (Kristjansson et al., 2021). From the point of view of the authors, Phronesis helps to solve the following tasks: (1) identify situations in which the manifestation of wisdom is necessary, (2) build a hierarchy of motives in case of conflict (for example, mercy versus justice), and (3) regulate emotions. The general function of phronesis can be summarized as enabling the individual to “thoroughly consider” the relative weight of competing values, actions, and emotions in the context of “what contributes to a good life in general”.
Considering philosophical and religious approaches to the understanding of wisdom in the history of their development, Roger Walsh (Walsh, 2011, 2015) shows that the differences between East and West are already manifested in writings dating back to ancient times. In the content of even such similar concepts as Sophia and Prajna or Phronesis and Upaya, ancient Greek and Buddhist authors put different accents. The author contrasts the “technophile” Western ideas of wisdom with the “timeless treasures” of Eastern religions.
Growing out of Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian and other religious practices, the understanding of wisdom in the East is associated with intuitive personal, often emotional experience, with processes of direct comprehension without explicit intellectualization. M. Takahashi and W.F. Overton point out that, for example, in modern Japanese there are even different terms that capture different aspects of wisdom: rikai, associated with the cognitive side, and hara (opening the insides to each other), which also includes the emotional experience of mutual understanding. An important consequence of the Eastern approach is the fundamental rejection of distinguishing the differentiated aspects of wisdom in favor of considering it as a reflective understanding based on a holistic cognitive, affective, intuitive, and social experience (Takahashi, Overton, 2005).
Comparing the ideas of wisdom in the West and in China, Zhen-Dong Wang and colleagues also note the emphasis on cognition in European culture and the idea of wisdom as a virtue in the East. And although most researchers around the world now agree on the necessity of “intelligence and virtue integration” to solve complex life problems, there are still significant cultural differences. Western authors concentrate on solving practical problems in the physical and social environment of a person, on resolving external conflicts. Chinese science is more interested in the spiritual problems of man, the possibilities of resolving contradictions within himself. Compared with the West, which is effective at using logical and analytical thinking and rational cognition, China is much better at using dialectical and holistic thinking and applying intuitive understanding.
Of course, the currently observed cultural differences in the understanding of wisdom have long historical roots. And it would be interesting to examine what place between the West and the East is occupied by the ideas of wisdom in Russian culture.
When comparing the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, and ancient Russian texts, K. Muzdybaev found that there are similarities and differences in the understanding of wisdom by representatives of these cultures.
For Sumerians wisdom is not to get involved in a quarrel, to fight a slanderer, to run a household where it is risky. Wisdom is not to deal with a mean person, it is reasonable not to get involved in a quarrel, it is right to avoid conflict. For quarrels, conflicts, wars tend to destroy, to chaos, and wisdom – to order, creation, unification. In the behavioral characteristics of their ideal of wisdom, there are two interrelated groups of indicators: (1) restraint, moderation, non-aggression, modesty, humility and (2) a balance of interests, positivity in relationships, solidarity, and cooperation.
In ancient Egypt, it was considered wise to follow two main rules: (1) to maintain agreement and solidarity, courtesy and positivity in relationships, as well as to maintain a balance of interests and (2) be modest, restraint, and moderate.
Analyzing the “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh, K. Muzdybaev notes that the Russian leader considers that wisdom includes the idea to strengthen the spirit of solidarity in his people, the desire for harmony, positivity in relationships, the manifestation of goodwill, and the balance of interests.
To sum up: “In the Sumerian civilization, more emphasis is placed on contextual knowledge and on the ability to think about, weigh the problem from all sides, that is, the cognitive characteristics of wisdom prevail … However, in the ancient Egyptian civilization, more attention is paid to the problem of understanding injustice and human dignity, as well as knowledge of life contexts and understanding of people… The model of wisdom in ancient Russian civilization could be called a unifying model, since it is aimed at creating a spirit of solidarity, cooperation, and harmony in society” (Muzdybaev, 2012, pp. 128-129).
The images of a wise person are diverse and depend upon culture too. In Russia, the word “wise” is associated more with reasonable government (for example, Yaroslav the Wise), or with the ability to see the truth and proximity to the foundations of the universe among the so-called folk sages or “prostetz (simple)” (Ivanov, 2017).
In European literature, the image of a wise person is also often ambiguous. For example, Merlin from medieval legends, Dr. Faust from I.V. Goethe, Gandalf at J.R. Tolkien, and Dumbledore at J.K. Rowling are people who solve the problems of good and evil, often wizards, and it’s not the coincidence that the words “wise” and “wizard” in English have the same root.
Comparing the content of the concepts of “wisdom” in Russian and in English, L.N. Goryanova shows that their primary perception is very close, it relates to the cognitive activity of a person: gaining knowledge about various phenomena of the surrounding world, a person thereby acquires wisdom. However, in the Russian conceptual picture of the world, wisdom is recognized, first of all, as a special trait of a person, in the English one, on the contrary, it is not so much the presence of this quality that is important, but its application in practice. For the Russian people, it is also typical to understand wisdom as universal knowledge that passes from one generation to another in the form of a heritage (Goryanova, 2012).
Wise man is close to the “Spiritual Man” with a kind heart, high levels of hardiness, meaningfulness of life, spiritual abilities, intelligence, and emotional stability. They can use their own resources and are able to withstand the influence of other people (Volkova, Kalugin, 2021).
In our study (Nikitina, 2021) the elderly respondents (65-92 years old) indicated the importance knowledge and life experience and said about their readiness to share with those who needed it, but only at the right time, they believe that it was more important not to insist on one’s own ideas, but “to lead the interlocutor to the right decision.”
Senior respondents also spoke about the need to assess the dynamics of the development of the situation, which correlates with the views of L.I. Antzyferova about wisdom as a “gift of foresight”.
A brief review of classical and contemporary publications on the understanding of the phenomenon of wisdom in different cultures demonstrates both common and different in Western and Eastern views on this phenomenon. At the same time, ideas about wisdom in Russia combine the features of both views but are not limited to them. For Russian respondents, the time axis is also important – wisdom is passed from ancestors to descendants, and at the same time allows you to see the prospects for the development of events or ideas.
- Antzyferova, L.I. (2006). Personal development and problems of gerontopsychology. Publishing House “Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, Moscow (in Russian). [Antzyferova, L.I. Razvitie lichnosti i problemy gerontopsihologii. M.: Izd-vo «Institut psihologii RAN», 2006].
- Glück, J., Weststrate, N.M. (2022). The Wisdom Researchers and the Elephant: An Integrative Model of Wise Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(4), 342-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221094650.
- Goryanova, L.N. (2012). Structures of the concepts MUDROST’ and WISDOM and ways of objectifying their features in the Russian and English language worldviews. Abstract diss. cand. philol. n., Kemerovo (in Russian). [Goryanova L.N. Struktury konceptov MUDROST’ i WISDOM i sposoby ob”ektivacii ih priznakov v russkoj i anglijskoj yazykovyh kartinah mira. Avtoref. diss. kand. filol. n. 2012, Kemerovo].
- Ivanov, N.N. (2017). Reception of the “folk sage” archetype in Russian literature. Upper Volga Philological Bulletin, 2, 17-20 (in Russian). [Ivanov, N.N. Recepciya arhetipa «narodnogo mudreca» v russkoj literature. Verhnevolzhskij filologicheskij vestnik, 2017, 2, 17-20].
- Kristjansson, K., Fowers, B., Darnell, C., Pollard, D. (2021). Phronesis (Practical Wisdom) as a Type of Contextual Integrative Thinking. Review of General Psychology, 25(3), 239-257. https://doi.org/ /10.1177/10892680211023063
- Mitina, E.V. The category of wisdom in ancient Russian religious consciousness: dis. … cand. philosophy Sciences: 09.00.13. Moscow, 2001. 149 p. (in Russian) [Mitina, E.V. Kategoriya mudrosti v drevnerusskom religioznom soznanii: dis. … kand. filos. nauk: 09.00.13. Moskva, 2001. 149 p.]
- Muzdybaev, K. (2012). The study of wisdom in the dead, ancient and modern civilizations. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 15(6), 113-130 (in Russian). [Muzdybaev, K. Issledovanie mudrosti v pogibshih, drevnih i sovremennyh civilizaciyah // Zhurnal sociologii i social’noj antropologii. 2012, 15 (6), 113-130].
- New Philosophical Encyclopedia (2001). “Mysl’”: Moscow. Ed. V.S. Styopin, (in Russian). [Novaya filosofskaya enciklopediya. M.: «Mysl’». Ed. V.S. Styopin, 2001].
- Nikitina, E.A. (2021). Modern research of wisdom: state and prospects. Psychological Journal, 42(2), 28-37 (in Russian). [Nikitina, E.A. Sovremennye issledovaniya mudrosti: sostoyanie i perspektivy. Psihologicheskij zhurnal, 2021, 42(2), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920014228-6
- Staudinger, U.M. (2008). A psychology of wisdom: History and recent developments. Research in Human Development, 5, 107-120.
- Takahashi M.; Overton W.F. (2005). Cultural Foundations of Wisdom. An Integrated Developmental Approach. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.) A handbook of wisdom. Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32 – 60.
- Tolstoy, L.N. (1984). Collected works. «Fiction literature», Moscow, vol. 18, p. 22 (in Russian). [Tolstoy, L.N. (1984). Sobraniye sochineniy. «Khudozhestvennaya literatura», Moskva, vyp. 18, s. 22.]
- Volkova, E.V. & Kalugin, A.Yu. (2021). Personality Types of Modern Russians: Myth or Reality? Natural Systems of Mind, 1, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.38098/nsom_2021_01_03_08
- Walsh, R. (2011). The varieties of wisdom: contemplative, cross-cultural, and integral contributions. Research in human development, 8 (2), 109 – 127.
- Walsh, R. (2015). What is wisdom? Cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary syntheses. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000045
- Wang, Zh.-D.; Wang, Y.-M.; Li, K.; Shi, J.; Wang F.-J. (2022). The comparison of the wisdom view in Chinese and Western cultures. Current Psychology, 41, 8032–8043. https://doi.org/1007/s12144-020-01226-w