From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

:Please add any new threads to a new section at the foot of this talk page.

Judaism section[edit]

the judaism section is confusing and dumb. there are two paragraphs talking about horns, surely a fringe topic when considering the volumes of quotables judaism has to say about wisdom. please, i am begging, somebody rewrite it. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

regarding the suggested merger[edit]

Philosophy and wisdom are not the same thing. Philosophy is formal and rigorous thought, whereas wisdom has been construed as a character trait, and is at the very least nowhere near the level of formality connoted by the term "philosophy." You would say someone has wisdom, but you wouldn't say someone has philosophy. Verditer 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wisdom should be its own article, and while it is connected with philosophy, the latter is too broad of a category. iatom 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wisdom is another broad concept that is best separated from Philosophy. Pydos 09:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely True: Wisdom and Philosophy are two different strains, where the two S's can never meet for the reasons given below:

    1. Every individual can have a Philosophy, So has the Tendencies to Divide; But Wisdom is always about getting Grounded on Facts,Truth and So it only Unites.
    2. With Every Philosophy, There can Arise Contradictions, Speculations and Doubts; Wisdom is all about well grounded Conviction and has no space for doubts.
    3. Wisdom Gained is Inexpressible; Philosophies are nothing but Expressions of each Individual's Wishful Thought.
    4. Most of the Best of Ancient Teachers have always Emphasized only on the methods of Gaining Wisdom and those methods cannot be categorized as a Philosophy, But can only be called as a Teaching.Chitvamasi 10:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Please use Plato's definition of Wisdom..."knowing if a specific activity (or lack of activity) will lead to a good time or a bad time." For example, young children lack wisdom because they don't know the consequences of many activities. They don't know that touching a hot stove can lead to pain. Adults have greater wisdom because they know the consequences of many activities. Knowledge is not limited to Wisdom. Knowledge includes much more information that is not just regarding the consequnces of activities.

Development of the Wisdom Entry[edit]

I wanted to attempt to carefully define "wisdom." I respect that my definition was removed, and have not wanted to force it back in, though I profoundly believe in the concept I tried to express. I invite all to consider the concept/definition. Though it may seem like a strange place, the discussion I offer is below, in the "Copyedits" section, since the editor that removed my definition did so with an invitation to discuss the wording in there. Feel free to reflect, and offer words that might help the "prose," but that do express the defining and distinguishing aspects of wisdom. -- Dr. Richard Carter

Thank you all.

Andrea/ibiji Passaggio 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The entry is not exactly in conformance with some of the most recent psychological literature on the subject. Specifically I would recommend some of the work of Sternberg and others who have studied wisdom extensively. Additionally, Howard Gardner (of multiple intelligences fame) has done some recent work on societal trustees - the people other people agree are trustworthy and knowledgable, etc. There are many "opinions" on wisdom, especially from religious perspectives. But the recent psychological work seems to offer a more substantial basis for an encyclopedia article. If no one objects within the next week I will attempt to edit the main article page to introduce some of these scientific perspectives.

George Mobus, 1/21/06

Older Commentary[edit]

I came across this article while I was working on DIKW... it appears to have slowly accreted over time without ever having an overall plan. I've giving it some structure, an improved first paragraph. I did remove a bit of stuff because it seemed like opinion or advice. It might be worthwhile to have a look at the other languages - for example fr:Sagesse seems to have a solid cover on the Greek philosophy of wisdom. Sbwoodside 07:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not — he is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not — he is ignorant; teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows — he is asleep; awaken him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows — he is wise; follow him.

Persian proverb

  • There are other possibilities
He who knows, and knows that he knows not — he is  ??; ???? him.
That would be "deluded", wouldn't it?

Interesting... wouldn't that be more appropriate for Wikiquote:Wisdom though? Sbwoodside 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Published Wisdom Poem[edit]

Poem taken from "The Age of Poetry" by C.J. Williams:

"Soft, but square. Sturdy, yet fragile. Like the ocean, but a swimming pool of dreams that last forever - like all these things, but more, bound together in eternal piece of heart worth struggle and sacrifice to the death of the glorious struggle between life and the supernatural such as everything we want in this alienated world of despair that entangles our relations and ideals of the world as one perfect being which will never be but may eventuate with a little hope, have a little faith in me! Have a little faith in me.."


Let's start with the changes on this page, first. The edits should be readable, before posting them to the article. --Ancheta Wis 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Reply, discussion from me/Passaggio, below.(Pls note: 1st time in talk page. If my protocols fails or i make faux pas, i honestly apologize.) I occasionally use a word in allcaps for emphasis, since I've no clue at all how to make it bold or italic. No shouting or emotion implied.
This is my attempt at defining "wisdom":
"Wisdom" is a state in which a being can judge with congruity (the same way across different contexts) one or all of the following: action, thought, behavior. Wisdom can apply to the ability to make such evaluation about action, thought, or behavior, in the present, or in the past."

Though I am aware that it is somewhat "involved" to read, I offer the following considerations:
1) It may be far from fluid, but it is "readable" (although...)
2) ...I am quite open to making it much more readable, fluid, but...
3) ...the definition must take priority over the "prose."
1 and 3 are pivotal. While I thank you for wanting to improve the prose, the problem with the definition I found before my edit (and that you reverted to) is that it seems flawed.
This is the definition currently posted, wich I find flawed:
"Wisdom is the ability to make correct judgments and decisions."
The 2 main flaws I see with the current wikipedia definition:
(A) the word "correct" (I would argue that this is beyond flawed: it seems to me that given the current state of knowledge, education, and culture, using the word "correct" is actually unacceptable, and not just from a philosophical and cultural perspective, but also from a multitude of problems inherent to the combined use of "wisdom" and "correct" within the same definition;
(B) the words "the ability to make ... judgments and decisions" - The ability to make decisions --even good judgments/decisions-- is something that one can experience through states OTHER than wisdom. One might have predisposition, luck, contexts and circumstances that result in the ability (even for a moment in time) to make a good judgment decision. In the extreme, I could trip, see a lucky number, decide to go to Vegas, win, be happy ever after. Good decision, and perhaps wise in hindsight, but I'm not sure it was wisdom that made me go to vegas. Or: I could see a speeding car headed toward me as I walk, and dodge. The decision to dodge would be the result of my "ability to make the correct judgment / decision," but it is a wide, perhaps overarching stretch to include or even imply within the definition of "wisdom" the decision to dodge speeding objects.
So, I tried to offer a "wise" definition of "wisdom," above. I am unhappy with the sounds of the words I selected, and open to more fluid/readbale words, but I offer that we ought to provide a sound definition.
To name a few elements that I think are crucial to a sound definition of the word "wisdom", I begin by listing these from my original definition above:
- "a state" (as opposed to just ability)
- "can" (as opposed to do: wisdom enables us to judge a thought/behavior, etc. (whether ours or someone else's). Without getting too philosophical about the fact that non-action is an act, by using the word/concept "can" above i'm trying to say that wisdom does not necessarily imply action--ditinguishing judgment from action, even from decision.
-"action, thought, or behavior" (or short but comprehensive list of what wisdom primarily enables us to judge)
-a concept that includes the ability to judge a behavior (etc.), and not just the ability to judge if that behavior is right/good/correct. (Wisdom lets us judge a behavior as it is: that behavior we are judging wisely may be a behavior that is right, wrong, hurried, justified, impulsive, conditioned by this or that -- wisdom doesn't just let us see if it's wrong or right, it lets us see how that behavior is, period.)
- "with congruity" - ugh -ugly word and consequent parenthetical phrase, but why "with congruity"? Because if the state that enables us to make a sound judgment is a fleeting state, then it's not wisdom. Wisdom necessarily entails that I'll be able to value that judgment or decision the same way over time/moods/factors. I cannot strees enough that this is to me THE definition of wisdom. Ironically, and hypothetically, this does not always and necessarily mean that my decision was "right" --all the more reason to avoid the word "correct". In other words, I may make a sound judgment/decision that is wise; however, years later I may suffer negative effects that I might not have suffered if not for that decision; but I will still be able to later look back and say: "given my knowledge and context a that time, despite what happened later, I did the wise thing." For example: decision to make: eat rotten food knowingly or don't eat rotten food knowingly. My wise decision is to NOT eat the rotten food knowingly. But because I don't eat the rotten food, I go to the grocery store to get fresh food. The ceiling of the grocery store collapses that very moment, and I die, painfully. Had I eaten the rotten food --or at any rate not gone to the grocery store that time-- I would not have been under that collapsed ceiling. So, in this scenario, if given a simplistic dichotomy of "good" and "bad" decisions, and if "dying painfully" is defined as "bad," then the "good" decision would have been to not go to the grocery store for fresh food. But it was still a wise decision. If you food is rotten, it is wisdom to not eat it and instead get fresh food.
The word "congruity" is one I don't like at all. But the concept of it is, I profoundly believe, paramount to the very definition of "wisdom," and such concept DISTINGUISHES wisdom from other states or circumstances that would OTHERWISE enable us to make good judgments. And again, it is tricky but crucial to observe that this does not imply a consisent, unchanging "correctness" of the decision made.
The idea of the concept of congruity is to set wisdom apart from the following: good judgments achieved by states other than wisdom; and any judgments (even good ones) that are due to a state that is fleeting. These are included/implied in the current wikipedia def., but I argue that they are not wisdom.
There is an additional sentence in my definition, not so much to define as to clarify. It's tothe effect that wisdom "can apply ... in the present or pas.t" It's something I added to the core definition, because even though one could argue that experience typically gives us wisdom in "hindsight" ("that was so dumb of me to do that years ago"), wisdom can/could be applied also to judgments we make at the present. I would add that's what we must strive for, and achieve. But that's outside the scope of this discussion...maybe

Passaggio 14:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Passaggio, Welcome to Wikipedia. Here is a link for starters. I took the liberty of

  1. moving the thread to this location, as it is the custom to append comments to the bottom of the talk page, and
  2. lower-casing some words in your contribution to demonstrate some formatting mechanisms, such as italic and boldface, which you might learn about later.

You can

  • sign a contribution thus: ~~~
  • sign and timestamp a contribution thus: ~~~~
  • timestamp a contribution thus (5 tildes (~)): ~~~~~

May I recommend some sample articles which are under active development by some very good editors:

these links are included because I wanted you to see some typical protocols followed by editors during the development of some very good articles.

Regarding your points above, I do not disagree with them. It is very easy to write words, but to choose the right ones is the difficult part of the art.

If I do not respond immediately, it may be because I have a lot on my agenda this weekend, as a brother-in-law is getting an honorary degree, and a daughter is also graduating. So I will be underway soon. --Ancheta Wis 14:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What comes to mind, upon reading your contribution, is Kurt Lehovec, one of the inventors of the integrated circuit, his opinion of the "Measure of a Man". I am not disclosing it, as I have never seen it published, but your opinions seem to echo his. --Ancheta Wis

Thank you Ancheta Wis!

Good luck w/ all your family and lives!

I wanted to reply to your msg with a msg 2 U specifically, but coulnd't figure out how. Apologies for using this section for it!

will study!

ciao, Passaggio 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


just had a thought rereading:

something like:

"wisdom is that state that enables us to look a at decision, a thought, or a behavior, in the same way across time, moods, and other factors."

excited : )

i'll try & post and see what happens! Passaggio 15:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The two should not be merged because one subject is classically about the love of wisdom, and the other is about wisdom itself. The two cannot be merged into one subject. --joseph 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thought -- there are all kinds of wisdom -- not all find their source in philosophical wisdom. Some wisdom involves common sense or "street wise" thinking that involves an awareness of people and culture and how to successfully interact with them/it. Other sources of wisdom involve understanding what facts mean - an overall perspective om reality. The sources of this wisdom is not philosophical reasoning as much as the accumulated knowledge of how things work and how we can use them to our advantage. For example, a person who knows how to easily prepare a pinapple for serving has a "kitchen" wisdom.

"Wisdom" is hard to define? not for are some basic definitions from Plato....

1. Wisdom (Scarecrow)....knowing if a specific activity leads to a good time or a bad time.

2. Courage (Lion)....facing an unpleasant activity now in order to have a good time later.

3. Virtue (Dorothy)...avoiding a fun activity/vice now that leads to a bad time later.

4. Compassion (Tinman)... attempting to improve the times of another.


Removed opinion ?[edit]

Moved this paragraph here. Interesting opinion but requires attributation / references before inclusion in article text ? Johnmarkh 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

These are some of the ingredients of wisdom-1.The ability to tell the important from the unimportant.2.The ability to "put yourself in someone else's shoes.You may notice that the first is subjective while the second is not

Left brain and right brain[edit]

I removed the sentence about intuition and wisdom belonging to parts of the brain as non-scientific and not supported by modern Neuroscience. The link that supported this sentence was also to a non-scientific web page expressing non-scientific opinion.

Second Edit[edit]

I removed the link to left brain-right brain from the opening section. There was also an unsupported statement that wisdom is particularly rare in American Society in the same sentance; which I also removed. Furthermore I separated the teachings of religion as they apply to Wisdom from those defined by philosophy. I also added some information regarding Buddhist definitions of wisdom from the Dhammapada. It would be good to have some explicit definitions of wisdom from different religions or philosophers as at present the term is nebulously defined.

MacShimi 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific perspective[edit]

I doubt that the additions under the scientific perspective should be classified as scientific in a sense distinct from philosophical. There is a branch of philosophy that deals with science as a system of thought, and these additions seem related to that area of philosophy. A counterargument may be that ideas about scientific wisdom are being advanced by scientists and therefore should be classified and identified as the scientific perspective. My objection to that claim is that scholarly endeavors are usually classified by what they are rather than who performs them. For example, a biologist who puts forward a theory of the origins of the universe is doing cosmology not biology. The so-called scientific perspective on wisdom is not scientific because it (apparently) neither collects nor analyses data. Nesbit 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Replaced that text with a link. --Ancheta Wis 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Stevenson-Perez, the concepts in this section have been covered in other articles; literally hundreds of editors have added their wisdom to those articles. Perhaps a few more links to the other articles in the encyclopedia are in order. --Ancheta Wis 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The content formerly placed in this section by Stevenson-Perez has apparently migrated to other pages of the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How about, "Cunning, competitiveness, career," as content for this section? - (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychological perspective[edit]

The section on Erikson should be reduced to focus only on the last stage of his theory, which is relevant to this article. The whole stage theory should be, and probably is, covered elsewhere. Agree? Nesbit 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to point out that there is newer and more developed research on wisdom beyond Erikson. The document I am familiar with is called "The Manual for the Assessment of Wisdom-Related Knowledge" and was researched and written by Paul Baltes and others at the Mack Planck Institute. Its ISBN # is 3879850372 according to this page: Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about wikipedia editing than I could make a note of this on the wisdom page? Kehaiji 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Kehaiji

There's a good summary of the newer and more developed research in the New York Times Magazine for May 7, 2007: [1]. I've included a couple items from it, including a mention of Baltes, but there's much more that could be mined for the expansion of this article. JamesMLane t c 08:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion wisdom is knowing when to apply a skill, when to talk and when to be quiet, when to act and when to wait... Wisdom is everything we have learned during our lives in inteligent application.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Accumulated pillows"???[edit]

The lead currently reads:

Wisdom, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is defined as "1 a: Accumulated pillows or scientific learning

I presume this is vandalism, but I can't find the point in the History where it was changed (and don't have a copy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary), so I can't revert it. Wardog (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, found it: the change was made on the 10th Jan by [[User:|142.17

Roleplaying Game Attributes[edit]

Statistic (role-playing games) links to wisdom as an attribute, even though there is no mention of that function in this article. Is Wisdom as a D&D stat notable enough for mention here? If not, should the link in the Stats article be removed? Reyemile (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable as a subtype of wisdom. There should probably be a subsection in this article on wisdom as a character trait in role-playing games. It might describe the ways that the stat can typically be incremented and decremented. Nesbit (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Added. It's pretty brief, but I'm not sure how much information is worth adding beyond what's there. Reyemile (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Should that section really be here? I think it would be more appropriate on a certain sister project of ours.--Supernerd 10 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Quotes section to Wikiquotes, as per your suggestion. --Dr.enh (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid reference?[edit]

The following reference in the Notes section seems doubtful:

Freduci Philomathis, "What is this thing called wisdom?", Journal Behind the State of the Art, Maybell, Colorado, 2006, p.1.

The title of the article looked intriguing, so I searched Google for the author and article title. All these searches resulted only in the wikipedia article or other sites using wikipedia data. I also couldn't find the journal, which is published in Maybell, CO -- a tiny town in northwest Colorado.

The change was made here (last year):

I'm not an expert, so I didn't delete the reference, but this doesn't seem right to me... (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Current state of the article[edit]

This needs more work - I don't really have time to do it. I've tried to make a start by at least having a ref-ed defintion. Any suggestions as to a workplan? NBeale (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Solomon: the wisest man[edit]

People came from near and far to hear Solomon's wisdom; it is not merely a biblical assertion that he was the wisest man ever to have lived (the biblical assertion is that he is the wisest there ever will be). For some reason, your page on wisdom does not reflect this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious facts about wisdom not yet included[edit]

While the article describes wisdom in very lovely wordy terms, it does not mention two obvious facts about wisdom that would help the would-be learner to discern what wisdom is: 1. Wisdom is the opposite of simplicity - before you have wisdom you are simply simple (sic). 2. Wisdom is opposed by foolishness - when you rebel against wisdom you are a fool, since you have not been able to identify your simplicity for what it is. These two facts in the opening description of wisdom would go a long way to helping people to learn what wisdom is, but also, to help them value it (which is more important). The approach of providing opposites and counterpoints is standard practice in dictionaries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

top image[edit]

I cannot accept an image of a bald old man with unbalanced eyes as a personification of wisdom. At the very least his gaze should be clear and focussed. Michelangelo, for one at least, understood this. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


I would suggest that wisdom not be combined with the entry for philosophy. Philosophy seems, to me, to be humankind's attempt at finding or joining themselves with a larger, super-existant or co-existant 'Wisdom' that is either larger than us all, and/or part of us all; that is always attempted to be explored and possibly found, by Philosophy. -jb (anon contribution by IP addr -- Revision as of 17:49, 25 May 2006 )

To think skillfully while considering priority, practicality, reasonableness (cause/effect/structure/function), context, and scope does appear to be magical or with special facility but is just thinking with greater precision. Such thinking is considered wise. This definition is from an expert at signed= Wemarmar@gmail.comWemarmar (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask the question that if evolution favors survival of the fittest then why is not the fit mind included. Meaning that a wise mind can survive more likely than an unwise mind. If this was the case then surely humankind would give birth to wise offspring. This seems to be not the case as we all take time to develop wisdom. Does this pose a question to the theory of evolution. Wisdom is not inherited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You answered already your own question: wisdom cannot be inherited, therefore it has nothing to do with Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. My be wise man live longer in average since they do not make wrong decisions that may cause early death. But sooner or later all wise men die, and their descendants not necessarily more wise than other people. This is also a demonstration of the difference between wisdom and intelligence. Intelligence is at least in part inheritable. Wisdom is more about how we use our intelligence, it is a moral and behavioural thing. Animals often behave more wise than many humans, even they obviously less intelligent. --G.Surján (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom is a matter of critical thinking, and as such cannot be projected onto animals. Animals have innate coherent behavior, a display of the intrisic stability of life through evolution. Wisdom is a matter of education, be it communal or personnal learning. It can also be a demonstration of the skillfull use or restriction of one's emotionnal drives, in such ways as, respect of "Netiquette" and avoidance of personnal attacks, coherence between religious beliefs and respect for animal life, and humility in defining the nature and relevance of intelligence. I find Wemarmar's proposition is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.BrYcE (talkcontribs) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The start of this article on Wisdom says "Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to choose or act or inspire to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time, energy or thought. It is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) apply perceptions and knowledge and so produce the desired results. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action". I don't have anything better to offer, but to my mind the use of the language of optimisation and functionalism is really unhelpful for defining wisdom. Does anybody here actually believe that "optimum results for a minimum of time, energy and thought" has anything to do with wisdom? Or that there is such a thing as an 'optimum' judgement? I think that Wisdom is a quality, not something defined by outcomes. Hence this first paragraph ought to read:

Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations and the ability to apply perceptions, judgements and actions in keeping with this understanding. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight. Wisdom often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that one's principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions.

It aint perfect but it's sure less misleading.--Aldorath (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Aldorath, please post your contributions to a labelled section at the foot of this page.
There might also be a social aspect where someone can actually ask these wise ones questions in hope of a reply. That would allow a functional definition. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:50, 23 Sep, 12:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: Moved some contributions to foot of talk page, in a section titled 'Lede', and attempted to retain date order of the items. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

i came on this discussion page only to find that Aldorath said exactly what i was thinking. time isnt always relevant in the application of wisdom. similarly, the concept of producing results conflicts with the idea that means would take precedence over results. this segment "to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time, energy or thought." refers to the idea of productivism, a questionnable concept in regards to wisdom. I am also troubled by the fact i cannot find a single reference to compassion in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.BrYcE (talkcontribs) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading, resource Neuroscience[edit]

Stephen S. Hall (Author) Wisdom: From Philosophy to Neuroscience (ISBN-13: 978-0307269102) Publisher: Knopf; 1st edition (March 9, 2010) (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a NYT review A Word About the Wise by Jim M Holt published: March 11, 2010 (March 14, 2010, on page 12 of the Sunday Book Review in print)
And Wisdom: From Philosophy to Neuroscience Book Review by Rachel Zelkowitz By Stephen S. Hall July 31st, 2010; Vol.178 #3 (p. 30) Science News (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe in Wisdom#Psychological perspectives? (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the etymology of the word : "wisdom" ?[edit]

Where is the etymology of the word : "wisdom" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wiktionary's etymology --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is nothing here in this article to indicate to any curious readers that, if he can help it, a wise man will never tell a man that if he doesn't like the look of him then he'll tell him nothing that could be of any use to him. Perhaps it's wiser then for a man to glean all his wisdom from the words and actions of ignorant fools, and leave the wise men of the world to dispense their wisdom to those who will listen to them with respectful awe, and without ruffling their tail-feathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be original research, or something? ekips39 02:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)