While doing some research on "wisdom", I came across this statement by Robert Sternberg on a web article: "I looked at people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela – take your own pick – and if you compare them to Stalin and Hitler and Mao, they probably didn’t differ much in I.Q. It seemed that what differentiated them was wisdom".
I need to know where I can find the origin of this statement / how to cite it.
Thank you
Dear Farheen
In your question you say that while doing research on "wisdom", you came across this statement by Robert Sternberg on a web article: "I looked at people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela – take your own pick – and if you compare them to Stalin and Hitler and Mao, they probably didn’t differ much in I.Q. It seemed that what differentiated them was wisdom". Then you ask where you can find the origin of this statement and how to cite it.
I think that the best way to know where you can find the origin of the statement referred to above and how to cite it is to put your two questions to Robert Sternberg. Certainly he will tell you. Note, however, that that statement is, so to speak, an ideological statement, not a scientific affirmation or truth. It is certainly the case that no one assessed the IQ of such figures nor do we know to what extent they were or were not wise people. It is certainly the case that Robert Sternberg did not look at all these people, albeit he says that "I looked at people like ... " In the statement is also mentioned that all these figures "probably didn't differ much in IQ". Again, this is an (educated) guess, no scientific affirmation. Thus, the statement makes only conjectures, but conjectures that cannot be falsified.
What is wisdom ? There are many definitions of it and there is no criterion for one to decide what is the best one. Note that the two groups that reflect and make research on wisdom (i.e., Paul Baltes and his colleagues at Max Planck Institute in Berlin and Robert Sternberg and his colleagues at York University, in New York) are not in total agreement with each other regarding the several facets of wisdom. Note also, dear Farheen, that in your question it appears "wisdom" not wisdom. Why is this the case?
Epistemologist John Laudan once remarked that science only progresses through clarification of meaning. As far I see it, this is not the case of the wisdom concept. Is seems to be that wisdom is a loose concept and thus, it is all and nothing at the same time. To an extent, it reminds me of Dr. Pangloss.
I find a reference to the following four fallacies in the NET, something in which wise people do not fall prey to:
The Egocentrism Fallacy: thinking that the world revolves, or at least should revolve, around you. Acting in ways that benefit yourself, regardless of how that behavior affects others.
The Omniscience Fallacy: believing that you know all there is to know and therefore do not have to listen to the advice and counsel of others.
The Omnipotence Fallacy: believing that your intelligence and education somehow make you all-powerful.
The Invulnerability Fallacy: believing that you can do whatever you want and that others will never be able to hurt you or expose you.
As far as I realize, we might say that moral exemplars do not fall prey to these fallacies either? So, will it be that wise people are morally good people? And why not define wisdom as one's ability to live in harmony with him/herself, the others, and the nature?
Best regards, Orlando
I believe Stephen Hall actually used that quote in his book on Wisdom, so you can check Hall's book to locate the source. Sternberg's edited book, Why Smart People can be so stupid, may have a comparable quote.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Meraj,
See Sternberg et al. 2011, Explorations in Giftedness, Cambridge University Press, p. 51.
H.G. Callaway
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics